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: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:08:43
Message-Id: 20140109181748.6ce650fc@caribou.gateway.pace.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] To enable ssp default in Gcc the toolchain.eclass need some changes. by Ryan Hill
1 On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:30:46 -0600
2 Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:29:26 -0500
5 > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@g.o> wrote:
6 >
7 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
8 > > Hash: SHA1
9 > >
10 > > On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
11 > > > Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
12 > > > "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> napisał(a):
13 > > >
14 > > >> On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
15 > > >>> What are the advantages of disabling SSP to deserve that "special"
16 > > >>> handling via USE flag or easily disabling it appending the flag?
17 > > >>
18 > > >> There are some cases where ssp could break things. I know of once case
19 > > >> right now, but its somewhat exotic. Also, sometimes we *want* to break
20 > > >> things for testing. I'm thinking here of instance where we want to test
21 > > >> a pax hardened kernel to see if it catches abuses of memory which would
22 > > >> otherwise be caught by executables emitted from a hardened toolchain.
23 > > >> Take a look at the app-admin/paxtest suite.
24 > > >
25 > > > Just to be clear, are we talking about potential system-wide breakage
26 > > > or single, specific packages being broken by SSP? In other words, are
27 > > > there cases when people will really want to disable SSP completely?
28 > > >
29 > > > Unless I'm misunderstanding something, your examples sound like you
30 > > > just want -fno-stack-protector per-package. I don't really think you
31 > > > actually want to rebuild whole gcc just to do some testing on a single
32 > > > package...
33 > > >
34 > > Or just as easily set -fno-stack-protector in CFLAGS in make.conf.
35 > >
36 > > I never felt manipulating cflags with use flags was a great idea, but in
37 > > this case is does feel extra pointless.
38 > >
39 > > Personally I don't feel this is needed, and the added benefit of
40 > > clearing up a bogus "noblah" use flag makes me smile.
41 > >
42 > > Zorry, do we really need this flag?
43 >
44 > Yes, we do. I want a way to disable it at a toolchain level.
45
46 Let me clarify. I would like to be able to disable it without relying on
47 CFLAGS or anything the user could fiddle with. I need a big red off switch,
48 at least for now.
49
50
51 --
52 Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk
53 gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
54
55 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] To enable ssp default in Gcc the toolchain.eclass need some changes. "Rick \\\"Zero_Chaos\\\" Farina" <zerochaos@g.o>