On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:21:30AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: >> On 07/11/2013 08:46 AM, Till Maas wrote: >> >On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 07:48:50AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote: >> >>And following the legitimate concerns about stack-protector this was >> >>raised by ARM into core Linaro as an urgent action for which engineering >> >>resource is being assigned to correct this deficiency ASAP. Thus within a >> >>day an issue has been noted that we were unaware of and is being worked >> >>through a process to correct it, as would be the case with any deficiency >> >>on x86. The stack protection stuff will be fixed. Let's bike shed over the >> >>next nitpick nuance that the anti-ARM crowd want to throw in the way ;) >> > >> >Was the flag ignored previously or why was this missing feature not >> >announced? >> >> Please see: >> >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/185106.html >> >> Per Carlos's email, the flag is not ignored, the feature is there, >> but it isn't as fully featured. Specifically stack guards are >> present but pointer guards are not. This was news to all of us. > > Stack guards are present, but using libssp, which is the fallback way, > second class citizen and most likely slower than the standard way.
Am I missing something about using libssp? It is literally a library, correct? Can you tell me which package provides it in Fedora? The gcc package removes libssp* unconditionally, so it isn't provided from that and I can't find a stand-alone libssp package. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
