| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 04:49:55 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> If I'm not mistaken, dirtyepic intends to patch gcc directly to enable |
| 5 |
> -fstack-protector, changing the default at that level so it'll be used |
| 6 |
> unless -fno-stack-protector is in CFLAGS. At least, that's how I |
| 7 |
> interpret (dirtyepic): |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> "'filter-flags -fstack-protector [won't] actually work |
| 10 |
> (we have to patch the compiler, not just add it to the |
| 11 |
> default flags in the profiles or something)." |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Actually it turns out I was completely wrong about this. The hardened flag |
| 14 |
filtering in flag-o-matic dumps the compiler specs (the rules that |
| 15 |
determine what flags to use) to check if hardened features are enabled |
| 16 |
and only negates them if they are. The quick hack I did for my testing was |
| 17 |
failing that check so the flags weren't being disabled. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk |
| 22 |
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 |
Archives