| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:19:56 +0100 |
| 5 |
Harald van Dijk <truedfx@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 08:51:42AM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 8 |
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:59:23 +0100 |
| 9 |
> > Harald van Dijk <truedfx@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:50:16AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > > my gnu stack docs are actually complete: |
| 13 |
> > > > http://hardened.gentoo.org/gnu-stack.xml |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > A question about that: you discourage fixing this with |
| 16 |
> > > --noexecstack because it's better to be able to submit a patch |
| 17 |
> > > upstream. What's your take on patches that modify configure |
| 18 |
> > > scripts or similar files to check for this flag, keeping it out |
| 19 |
> > > of the ebuild? Is that good, acceptable, or bad, and why? |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Using '--noexecstack' overrides anything the compiler works out for |
| 22 |
> > itself, so applying it indiscriminately is a bad idea. For |
| 23 |
> > example, if an application contains asm code with no markings, but |
| 24 |
> > also contains code that creates trampolines, it should be marked |
| 25 |
> > for executable stack even if the asm code is fixed. Applying |
| 26 |
> > '--noexecstack' via LDFLAGS would break such an application. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > Regarding patches, it's usually much simpler to patch asm source |
| 29 |
> > code compared to patching an application's make process. Patching |
| 30 |
> > asm source code just means appending a few lines depending on the |
| 31 |
> > type of assembler used. |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > As far as ebuilds are concerned, if you add it to LDFLAGS you will |
| 34 |
> > need to re-check the application every time you bump the ebuild, |
| 35 |
> > and it's difficult to find new occurrences of nested functions for |
| 36 |
> > example if you've applied '--noexecstack'. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> LDFLAGS? Assuming you meant ASFLAGS, this doesn't affect C files, and |
| 39 |
> would need rechecking of the assembly code on updates just as much as |
| 40 |
> patches which add .note.GNU-stack would, right? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
You're right there. I was thinking of '-Wl,-z,[no]execstack' which |
| 43 |
can be used on LDFLAGS, but overrides the setting for the whole |
| 44 |
application. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
- -- |
| 47 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
| 48 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 49 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
iD8DBQFDoRfM9G2S8dekcG0RAoiRAKDcjEaXjLU4AmC+1NLM8zzOZ7DoDQCeJILV |
| 52 |
oncYVeaOrMf77XZyRwWCBUA= |
| 53 |
=ua9o |
| 54 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives