1 |
On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52 |
3 |
> "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> napisał(a): |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
6 |
>>> What are the advantages of disabling SSP to deserve that "special" |
7 |
>>> handling via USE flag or easily disabling it appending the flag? |
8 |
>> There are some cases where ssp could break things. I know of once case |
9 |
>> right now, but its somewhat exotic. Also, sometimes we *want* to break |
10 |
>> things for testing. I'm thinking here of instance where we want to test |
11 |
>> a pax hardened kernel to see if it catches abuses of memory which would |
12 |
>> otherwise be caught by executables emitted from a hardened toolchain. |
13 |
>> Take a look at the app-admin/paxtest suite. |
14 |
> Just to be clear, are we talking about potential system-wide breakage |
15 |
> or single, specific packages being broken by SSP? In other words, are |
16 |
> there cases when people will really want to disable SSP completely? |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Unless I'm misunderstanding something, your examples sound like you |
19 |
> just want -fno-stack-protector per-package. I don't really think you |
20 |
> actually want to rebuild whole gcc just to do some testing on a single |
21 |
> package... |
22 |
> |
23 |
Correct, you'd only want to turn off ssp per package and then only in |
24 |
rare cases. You should never have to rebuild gcc for this. With ssp on |
25 |
by default, gcc specs would add -fstack-protector to all builds. If you |
26 |
don't want a package build with ssp, then just do |
27 |
CFLAGS="-fno-stack-protector" and you're building without ssp. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
31 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
32 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
33 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
34 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |