[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] To enable ssp default in Gcc the toolchain.eclass need some changes.

[Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2362 bytes --]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:30:46 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:29:26 -0500
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 17:06:52
> > > "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> > > 
> > >> On 01/09/2014 04:57 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > >>> What are the advantages of disabling SSP to deserve that "special"
> > >>> handling via USE flag or easily disabling it appending the flag?
> > >>
> > >> There are some cases where ssp could break things.  I know of once case 
> > >> right now, but its somewhat exotic.  Also, sometimes we *want* to break 
> > >> things for testing.  I'm thinking here of instance where we want to test 
> > >> a pax hardened kernel to see if it catches abuses of memory which would 
> > >> otherwise be caught by executables emitted from a hardened toolchain.  
> > >> Take a look at the app-admin/paxtest suite.
> > > 
> > > Just to be clear, are we talking about potential system-wide breakage
> > > or single, specific packages being broken by SSP? In other words, are
> > > there cases when people will really want to disable SSP completely?
> > > 
> > > Unless I'm misunderstanding something, your examples sound like you
> > > just want -fno-stack-protector per-package. I don't really think you
> > > actually want to rebuild whole gcc just to do some testing on a single
> > > package...
> > > 
> > Or just as easily set -fno-stack-protector in CFLAGS in make.conf.
> > 
> > I never felt manipulating cflags with use flags was a great idea, but in
> > this case is does feel extra pointless.
> > 
> > Personally I don't feel this is needed, and the added benefit of
> > clearing up a bogus "noblah" use flag makes me smile.
> > 
> > Zorry, do we really need this flag?
> 
> Yes, we do.  I want a way to disable it at a toolchain level.

Let me clarify.  I would like to be able to disable it without relying on
CFLAGS or anything the user could fiddle with.  I need a big red off switch,
at least for now.


-- 
Ryan Hill                        psn: dirtyepic_sk
   gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org

47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E  7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]