linux-hardening - Re: On clang vs. gcc fortify warnings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b2316d0a-71e1-dcff-765f-293e311c4362@yandex.ru>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 18:16:59 +0300
From:   Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
To:     Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@...plt.org>
Cc:     linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: On clang vs. gcc fortify warnings

On 6/22/23 17:25, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> Sorry, I can't reproduce the warning on clang 16.0.5 with the default config +CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE on x86_64.  Could you share more details on your config or a preprocessed source and compiler flags 
> that get passed in?

Sure.

Dmitry

View attachment "dot-config" of type "text/plain" (34068 bytes)

View attachment "log.txt" of type "text/plain" (3555 bytes)

View attachment "Makefile" of type "text/plain" (16 bytes)

View attachment "test.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (885 bytes)