On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:29:26 -0500 "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zeroch...@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" <bluen...@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. -- Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
