| From | Kees Cook <> | Date | Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:41:48 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 21/30] stack-protector: test compiler capability in Kconfig and drop AUTO mode |
| |
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote: > +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE) := -fno-stack-protector > +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR) := -fstack-protector > +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG) := -fstack-protector-strong > + > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(stackp-flags-y)
So, technically, this works just fine. I wonder if it has an overly confusing result, in that the compiler under normal situations will see:
gcc ... -fno-stack-protector -fstack-protector -fstack-protector-strong ...
How about something like this instead:
ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fstack-protector-strong else ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fstack-protector else KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-stack-protector endif endif
-Kees
-- Kees Cook Pixel Security
|