On Thursday 11 July 2013 07:00:15 [email protected] wrote: > Recently just another open(.., O_CREAT) without mode_t flags slipped in > the git, which would have been easily catched early by glibc > _FORTIFY_SOURCE feature. If _FORTIFY_SOURCE is set additional checks for > unused return values, buffer overflows etc. are done. Some distros eable > it even by default... > > Does anybody oposse against adding -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 to the default > LTP CFLAGS?
i have a hard time coming up with a scenario where having the flags enabled
would cause a problem for us. i.e. trying to test C library behavior by
violating fortify. if that does actually come up, we could just easily put at
the top of the test:
/* We actually want test verify XXX */
#undef _FORTIFY_SOURCE
Gentoo has had this enabled by default in the toolchain for years and don't
recall running into a problem thus far.
nit though: this should be CPPFLAGS, not CFLAGS.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights, analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management. Visit us today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
