| 1 |
05.09.2013 14:47, Tom Wijsman пишет: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:13:28 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Agostino Sarubbo <ago@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Hello, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> during an irc debate, me and other people just noticed that the |
| 8 |
>> default profile could use more flags to enhance the security. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> An hint is here: |
| 11 |
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ToolChain/CompilerFlags |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Please argue about what we _don't_ use. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Note: please CC me in your response. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> What I wonder about here is at which cost this does come, when looking |
| 18 |
> at the fstack-protector then I see that it "emits extra code"; so, now |
| 19 |
> the question is what kind of overhead this causes. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I am pretty sure security might not be that important on a real time |
| 22 |
> system that perhaps isn't connected to the internet; so, besides making |
| 23 |
> it the default, we might want to introduce the necessary means to turn |
| 24 |
> it off again, by the very least perhaps documentation would suffice. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Do you intend to discuss that flag or more generally any security flag? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Regarding -fstack-protector - it can be used at least in hardened |
| 30 |
profiles(but i have some sort of bad expirience with it and uclibc[1]). |
| 31 |
Also kernel has apropriate option to enable it during build. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
However, i am not skilled with GCC internals, so i can say nothing about |
| 34 |
perfomance impact this flag may have. Maybe toolchain guys can bring |
| 35 |
light on this ;-) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
[1] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470608 |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
| 41 |
Gentoo developer |
| 42 |
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead |
| 43 |
Gentoo Qt project lead |
| 44 |
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead |
Archives