Archives
Archives
| From: | pageexec@××××××××.hu | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-hardened@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-hardened] SSP + setjmp() = badness? | ||
| Date: | Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:36:31 | ||
| Message-Id: | 44CE6902.25475.47D2F50D@pageexec.freemail.hu | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-hardened] SSP + setjmp() = badness? by Ned Ludd |
||
| 1 | On 31 Jul 2006 at 11:28, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 | > gcc-4.x and hardened are not in the works.. |
| 3 | > We are undecided at this time how much we wish to pursue that avenue. |
| 4 | |
| 5 | which part of hardened gcc is in question? i'd think that at least |
| 6 | PIE/RELRO/BIND_NOW are as easy to support as in 3.x. ssp may or may |
| 7 | not be a good idea given how new the 4.x series is, but as Mike said, |
| 8 | at least there's an eager upstream to fix any issues. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | -- |
| 11 | gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-hardened] SSP + setjmp() = badness? | Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |