Gentoo Archives: gentoo-hardened

From: Alexander Gabert <pappy@g.o>
To: "Peter S. Mazinger" <ps.m@×××.net>
Cc: gentoo-hardened@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] purpose of guard.c (ssp_guard.o)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:52:40
Message-Id: 1067546991.8315.60.camel@ferret.external
In Reply to: [gentoo-hardened] purpose of guard.c (ssp_guard.o) by "Peter S. Mazinger"
1 hi,
2
3 this object has been introduced due to the fact that gcc sometimes did
4 not emit proper guard symbols into a binary and a library needed it
5 however.
6 so we put that in, but it opened more problems than it solved because
7 now there are too many guards around.
8
9 currently this object is going to be integrated in glibc and gcc a bit
10 different, i will introduce it this weekend i hope.
11
12 for now, you can disable hcc when compiling a kernel and/or take out the
13 ssp_guard.o of the specs file.
14
15 bye,
16
17 Alex
18
19 On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 21:12, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
20 > Hello!
21 >
22 > What is the purpose, use of the file(s)? I do not have a gentoo
23 > installation, but I am considering using it on my platform (uClibc). I
24 > know it is regarding to propolice, but when are they used. I have checked
25 > the scripts from hardened-gcc-2.4.4, and it looks like you use them only
26 > for static binaries. Is this right? Is it needed, if all the builds are
27 > done with -fstack-protector(-all) set?
28 >
29 > The patch (2.4.20-xxx, guard, smash) for the kernel produces warnings,
30 > regarding guard from lib/propolice.c, when the kernel is
31 > built. I haven't activated HAVE_PROPOLICE yet. Is this
32 > normal?
33 >
34 > Peter
35
36
37 --
38 gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-hardened] purpose of guard.c (ssp_guard.o) "Peter S. Mazinger" <ps.m@×××.net>