Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:24:15 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |