[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdV-bHCughvYcVQfCf5wA-eS76LSeX4kPw13FZdvqQk9eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 20:11:37 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Magnus Damm <damm+renesas@...nsource.se>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: fix atags_to_fdt with stack-protector-strong
Hi Kees,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> Also, I suspect that all of the decompressor should be built with
>> -fno-stack-protector as we don't have sufficient environment here.
>> Maybe it should be placed in the global CFLAGS for the decompressor?
>
> I prefer keeping it disabled in as narrow a range as possible. If
> other code gains a level of complexity that it triggers the stack
> protector code insertion, I think that's worth examining when it
> happens. If this ever becomes an actual burden, then yeah, let's do it
> for the whole decompressor, but I think it'd be best to revisit it if
> it happens again.
What's the failure mode if the stack protector code insertion is triggered?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists