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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bf6cbc6f-c627-5ff5-d76e-c9796af2c3a0@gotplt.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 18:13:35 -0400
From:   Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@...plt.org>
To:     Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
Cc:     linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: On clang vs. gcc fortify warnings

On 2023-06-22 11:16, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> 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.

I've filed a gcc bug for this:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110373

Thanks,
Sid