lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CC_STACKPROTECTOR vs CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL

* Kees Cook <kees@ubuntu.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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-29 22:27    [W:0.067 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site