From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F234138247 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:19:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28E2EE0B8C; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29048E0B6A for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:19:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.17] (pool-72-95-221-222.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net [72.95.221.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zerochaos) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 298BE33F4C4 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:19:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52CF2E80.6090800@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:19:28 -0500 From: "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] To enable ssp default in Gcc the toolchain.eclass need some changes. References: <7554031.Sacz2dxc8i@laptop1.gw.ume.nu> <1389304629.424.44.camel@belkin5> <52CF1D7C.4030700@gentoo.org> <20140109232116.398080f1@gentoo.org> <52CF22C6.6030907@gentoo.org> <52CF2C2E.20402@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <52CF2C2E.20402@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: abc2f415-ef47-4037-a416-c929791ae6a7 X-Archives-Hash: 9a0bf92a256ac272e341c6825c980be8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/09/2014 06:09 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 01/09/2014 05:29 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina 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" 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 just reread this and we'd better be clear here. With ssp on by > default in gcc, if you put CFLAGS="... -fno-stack-protector" in > make.conf you will build your *entire* system with no ssp. You probably > don't want this. You'll probably only want ssp off on a per package > basis, in which case, add a line to package.env and set the CFLAGS for > only that package. > Of course this is EXACTLY the same as building gcc[nossp] which is what we are discussing. So afaict you and I are in total agreement on all fronts. - -Zero -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSzy6AAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKOY0P/2dfvjVAFTq9NyZqMgJe0j1/ sENGtTCAAxKWh3eoqPywDJpEarPYoIsctMUGbuM2Dx6kC1zv20klXiT9Oec5j8aG qnAogeCubAQD/AjDLI5VjDU5dAH7xUEEQKWPEEdjqfV1xWstW91f+tfPg2JkxpMS zeQtSAIhJJMRdcFXmmWIvbh8zAUczdxsEcdGBHSt97utbMnbJMOE1eGEWGqAfzWm vFYLnA8R/TZO//wkbkqNTAQjL3JV8DKScaqVyFxh5wQhTCLMN4QFVqnlSJGDiZPS bddylShRtMXXsqPmFmLIsFf9tY7N03+2U8Ex3l1ToEpBATK6kkwBtuVCv0tOPvp8 EYOOXjmHZSmsG37SUFMgZpsAfNCf6H030G1i9NEC2zOnW5i9vHWmL1rAVpVYGdu2 N3rW2QYPEQzIBjNOojsXp515okIzPt8biXcWGT1R+te2BUoEeNwLNco9zCJecL1H YZNSmmA0fwc/vgvKOh1kfV4VAFwmM/cHAlI7UPG9ypM6Fo/3dn7zZgUaXdQU2KeL g+UNaFDj2p8ob+2vIc5N0lNwSNgY/vms2DehXRAV52vwogxNBgTftJZwwQv+j25u g1JWGf/MOXbh7mfDDK5Xr10fHEui6hpeSofC3BZC8pQ6k1duB1rKituWhBzBJBPF w8AeXL74ZvsUwwUxwi4A =AtZz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----