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 |