linux-kernel - Re: CC_STACKPROTECTOR vs CC_STACKPROTECTOR

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: <20090429202415.GB21421@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:24:15 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Kees Cook <kees@...ntu.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: CC_STACKPROTECTOR vs CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL


* Kees Cook <kees@...ntu.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> What is the rationale for why CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL is forced when 
> using CC_STACKPROTECTOR?  I would have expected _ALL to be a 
> separate option (as it was in earlier versions), but it seems it 
> is forced on by commit 113c5413cf9051cc50b88befdc42e3402bb92115.

it used to be a separate option. I merged them into one, because we 
had too many options really, and because the vmsplice exploit would 
only have been caught by the _ALL variant. So the 'light' variant 
never really worked well IMO.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/