Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:28:58 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good |
| |
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:19:45 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * 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.
I doubt if anyone will care much.
> it's analogous as if there was a bug in gcc that made SELinux totally > ineffective in some mitigate-exploit-damage scenarios.
Not really. In the selinux case we don't know that it'll break at compile time.
> 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? >
Yeah, #error would work too.
| |