Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] To enable ssp default in Gcc the toolchain.eclass need some changes.
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 23:25:21
Message-Id: 20140109173046.65952ac8@caribou.gateway.pace.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] To enable ssp default in Gcc the toolchain.eclass need some changes. by "Rick \\\"Zero_Chaos\\\" Farina"
1 On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:29:26 -0500
2 "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
5 > Hash: SHA1
6 >
7 > On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
8 > > Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
9 > > "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> napisał(a):
10 > >
11 > >> On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
12 > >>> What are the advantages of disabling SSP to deserve that "special"
13 > >>> handling via USE flag or easily disabling it appending the flag?
14 > >>
15 > >> There are some cases where ssp could break things. I know of once case
16 > >> right now, but its somewhat exotic. Also, sometimes we *want* to break
17 > >> things for testing. I'm thinking here of instance where we want to test
18 > >> a pax hardened kernel to see if it catches abuses of memory which would
19 > >> otherwise be caught by executables emitted from a hardened toolchain.
20 > >> Take a look at the app-admin/paxtest suite.
21 > >
22 > > Just to be clear, are we talking about potential system-wide breakage
23 > > or single, specific packages being broken by SSP? In other words, are
24 > > there cases when people will really want to disable SSP completely?
25 > >
26 > > Unless I'm misunderstanding something, your examples sound like you
27 > > just want -fno-stack-protector per-package. I don't really think you
28 > > actually want to rebuild whole gcc just to do some testing on a single
29 > > package...
30 > >
31 > Or just as easily set -fno-stack-protector in CFLAGS in make.conf.
32 >
33 > I never felt manipulating cflags with use flags was a great idea, but in
34 > this case is does feel extra pointless.
35 >
36 > Personally I don't feel this is needed, and the added benefit of
37 > clearing up a bogus "noblah" use flag makes me smile.
38 >
39 > Zorry, do we really need this flag?
40
41 Yes, we do. I want a way to disable it at a toolchain level.
42
43
44 --
45 Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk
46 gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47
48 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies