Re: [gentoo-user] Should we disable FORTIFY_SOURCE for packages where it is not default?

2009-04-10 Thread Jorge Morais
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:55:36 +0200 Peter Alfredsen wrote: > > I have seen some FORTIFY_SOURCE bugs in the bugzilla and in some > > cases, people claim the the bug lies in the FORTIFY_SOURCE feature > > itself (that is, people claim that FORTIFY_SOURCE misidentifies a > > buffer overflow). One exa

Re: [gentoo-user] Should we disable FORTIFY_SOURCE for packages where it is not default?

2009-04-10 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:55:36 +0200 Peter Alfredsen wrote: > CXXFLAGS="-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE" > > That's where most ebuilds will pick it up. +CFLAGS of course. D'oh. /loki_val

Re: [gentoo-user] Should we disable FORTIFY_SOURCE for packages where it is not default?

2009-04-10 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:39:26 -0300 Jorge Morais wrote: > From the info page of GCC 4.3.3 > NOTE: In Gentoo, `-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2' is set by default, and is > activated when `-O' is set to 2 or higher. This enables > additional compile-time and run-time checks for several libc > functions. T

[gentoo-user] Should we disable FORTIFY_SOURCE for packages where it is not default?

2009-04-08 Thread Jorge Morais
From the info page of GCC 4.3.3 NOTE: In Gentoo, `-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2' is set by default, and is activated when `-O' is set to 2 or higher. This enables additional compile-time and run-time checks for several libc functions. To disable, specify either `-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE' or `-