Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 2/5] Add the Kconfig option for the stackprotector feature | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:06:36 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:49:38 +0200, Adrian Bunk said: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 12:14:51PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:19:38 +0200, Adrian Bunk said: > > > > > That was never true in Arjan's patches. > > > > > > The only change is from a gcc version check to a feature check. > > > > > > In both cases, a gcc 4.1 without the appropriate patch applied will > > > result in this option not being set. > > > > What do you get if you have a gcc 4.1.1. that has the stack protector option > > (so a feature check works), but not the fix for gcc PR 28281? > > This is handled correctly in both cases. > > Please read the patches in this thread for more information.
Patches? I read the *patches*. :) What I missed was this:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115412601229175&w=2
was the only thing I found (over in the 5/5 thread) that remotely looked like an actual workable test, and all Arjan said was:
> the following line is enough actually:
> echo "int foo(void) { char X[200]; return 3; }" | gcc -S -xc -c -O0 -mcmodel=kernel \ -fstack-protector - -o - | grep -q "%gs"
> echo $? (eg return value) gives 0 for the "works" case, "1" for the > "wrong gcc" case...
I admit missing that one, because it wasn't actually a patch, but a commentary I managed to not read and digest in detail (in particular, it wasn't at all clear that his one-liner would DTRT re: PR28281...)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |