On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It's been there since the very beginning when Arjan added it to
> validate that the compiler actually produces a stack protector when
> you give it -fstack-protector. Older gccs broke this entirely, more
> recent misconfigurations (as seen with some of Arnd's local gcc
> builds) did similar, and there have been regressions in some versions
> where gcc's x86 support flipped to the global canary instead of the
> %gs-offset canary.
Argh. I wanted to get rid of all that entirely, and simplify this all.
The mentioned script (and bugzilla) was from 2006, I assumed this was
all historical.
But if it has broken again since, I guess we need to have a silly script. Grr.
But yes, I also reacted to your earlier " It can't silently rewrite it
to _REGULAR because the compiler support for _STRONG regressed."
Because it damn well can. If the compiler doesn't support
-fstack-protector-strong, we can just fall back on -fstack-protector.
Silently. No extra crazy complex logic for that either.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
