On 19/12/07 13:51 -0500, Corey Osgood wrote: > Jordan Crouse wrote: > > I need a community vote. There is an lingering stack protect issue > > in LinuxBIOS, and it hits us when we port new platforms. The problem is > > that not all of the lines in the various Config.lb files that compile > > code also include the $(CPU_OPT) variable that we use to pass in the > > -fno-stack-protector from buildrom. > > > > So I offer these two possible solutions. One is a patch to buildrom that > > changes how we pass in the -fno-stack-protect flag (thanks to Marc for > > the patch). The other is a patch to LinuxBIOS itself to fix the actual > > problem and pass $(CPU_OPT) where appropriate in the mainboard Config.lb > > files. > > > > So I leave it to the community - which solution do we prefer? One one > > hand, the buildrom solution only affects targets when built by buildrom, > > so abuild and other tools aren't affected, though it glosses over the real > > problem. > > > > On the other hand, any tools who may find CPU_OPT useful for their own > > uses will hit this too, but it is far more likely to break things. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > I'll be brutally honest: I don't like either one.
Don't for a minute think that I enjoy doing this - -fno-stack-protector is a pain in the tuckus. But, its the world we live in, and if there is one thing I've learned over the years, its that there will _always_ be a "broken" distribution. Today it is Ubuntu, but Redhat/Fedora and SuSE have had their moments in the sun too. Jordan -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios