Re: [poky] [PATCH] local.conf.sample: disable prelink

Alexander Kanavin

PIE is nowadays more or less the only available option and is expected for improved security; Yocto does not even test non-PIE builds or provide an off the shelf way to turn it off.

I also have to note that prelink does show higher RAM consumption in your tests as well (MemFree column). On the constrained systems which would benefit most from improved prelink timings that might be a bigger loss than not prelinking.

But yes, there is a timing benefit visible in the tests: 0.01s vs 0.1s.


On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 22:58, Robert Berger@... <robert.berger.yocto.user@...> wrote:
Hi Alex, RP, Mark,

I did some research on the subject in order to try to figure out what is
going on.

1) I come to a similar conclusion with what found, but tried to look a
bit deeper for the reason.

1.1) The reason that cross-prelink is not prelinking is, that for a
quite some time by default everything is built with PIE mode by default
and cross-prelink does not seem to be able to work on exe/libs compiled
with PIE mode. So seeing the same behavior with and without prelinking
is what I would expect as long as everything is compiled with PIE mode.

A more detailed analysis of my tests can be found on my not yet
officially published site:


Can you please rebuild your test images without PIE mode and re-run the

Then we should have the 4 test cases:


I guess then we can discuss what are the next steps.

In my opinion the current default settings, which compile close to
everything in PIE mode, but invoke also cross-prelink do not make much

The question is: "Do we want to drop cross-prelink, or do we want to
drag it along and come up more fine-grained configuration options?"

We could e.g. exclude certain files from pre-linking.

IMHO cross-prelink still works, but not on exe/libs which were compiled
in PIE mode.



Join to automatically receive all group messages.