| 1 |
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 20:33 +0200, pageexec@××××××××.hu wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 31 Jul 2006 at 11:28, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> > gcc-4.x and hardened are not in the works.. |
| 4 |
> > We are undecided at this time how much we wish to pursue that avenue. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> which part of hardened gcc is in question? i'd think that at least |
| 7 |
> PIE/RELRO/BIND_NOW are as easy to support as in 3.x. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Yes these would be pretty trivial to do. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> ssp may or may |
| 12 |
> not be a good idea given how new the 4.x series is, but as Mike said, |
| 13 |
> at least there's an eager upstream to fix any issues. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I think the major problem we are facing here is how to cleanly upgrade |
| 16 |
from 3.x to 4.x. symbol names have changed. And using the stub/aliases |
| 17 |
method Peter used in uClibc svn allows the __guard to be overwritten. |
| 18 |
Flags are missing etc. Upstream also destroyed the value of the handler. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 23 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
Archives