On Jan 16, 2008 7:27 PM, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2008 11:27 AM, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2008 8:03 AM, Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For a few months -fno-stack-protector is used to build ld.so and the > > > libraries, using the 'configparms' file to reset some build > > > rules. -fstack-protector-all can be used when building the utilities. > > > > > > robert > > > > > > > why? is it because the build system makes it hard? i know stack > > protection has some overhead but i dont mind. > > > > i think its possible to build everything with stack-protector-all. but > > does it make sense to do that? i cant think of any reason why not > > though. > > > > maybe all thats needed is tweaking the configparms file. i tried > > linking ld.so with libssp.a but it brings in symbols unneeded by > > ld.so. maybe its better to copy a custom ssp into ld.so. > > > > i wonder how openbsd does it. > > Glibc by itself know when ssp works and uses it respectively and glibc > code is so opaque to me that i cant fix it. > >
Sorry for the noise but i just found out that glibc-2.6.1 already has built in ssp support. > > -- > Lay low and nourish in obscurity > -- Lay low and nourish in obscurity -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
