Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:19:45 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:49:08 -0700 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:03:31 -0700 > > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > I repulled all the trees an hour or two ago, installed everything on > > > an 8-way x86_64 box and: > > > > > > > > > stack-protector: > > > > > > Testing -fstack-protector-all feature > > > No -fstack-protector-stack-frame! > > > -fstack-protector-all test failed > > > > do you have a stack-protector capable GCC? I guess not. > > > > This is a catch-22. You do not have stack-protector. Should we make that > > a silent failure? or do you want to know that you don't have a security > > feature you thought you had.... complaining seems to be the right thing to do imo. > > A #warning sounds more appropriate.
this warning is telling the user that the security feature that got enabled in the .config is completely, 100% not working due to using a stack-protector-incapable GCC.
it's analogous as if there was a bug in gcc that made SELinux totally ineffective in some mitigate-exploit-damage scenarios. No harm done on a perfectly bug-free system - but once a bug happens that SELinux should have mitigated, the breakage becomes real. Having a prominent warning is the _minimum_.
having a build failure would be nice too because this is a build environment problem. (not a build warning - warnings can easily be missed because on a typical kernel build there's so many false positives that get emitted by various other warning mechanisms) Arjan?
Ingo
| |