On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 10:11 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfo > > undation.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 16:34 +0100, Joshua Lock wrote: > > > > > > Add the SHARED_OBJECTS variable to SECURITY_LDFLAGS vardeps so > > > that > > > changing SHARED_OBJECTS causes do_compile to re-run. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joshua Lock <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc > > > b/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc > > > index 295c733..901c841 100644 > > > --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc > > > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc > > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ SECURITY_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong - > > > -param ssp-buffer-size=4 -pie -fpi > > > SECURITY_NO_PIE_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong --param ssp > > > -buffer-size=4 ${lcl_maybe_fortify} ${SECURITY_STRINGFORMAT}" > > > > > > SECURITY_LDFLAGS ?= "-Wl,-z,relro,-z,now${pie_ld}" > > > +SECURITY_LDFLAGS[vardeps] += "SHARED_OBJECTS" > > > > Surely you want: > > > > pid_ld[vardeps] += "SHARED_OBJECTS" > > > > ? > > > > Also, you mention SHARED_OBJECTS defaults to "0", where is that? I > > am a > > little worried the variable name is also a bit generic? Setting > > this in > > the following way: > > > > SECURITY_SHARED_OBJECTS = "-fpie" > > SECURITY_SHARED_OBJECTS_pn-XXX = "" > > > > may be more in keeping with the way the rest of the file is written > > and > > avoids games with base_conditional and vardeps? > > > > I am also worried about trying to maintain a large list like this, > > the > > idea was to reduce the number of exceptions, not build lists which > > will > > ever increase :(. I can't see this scaling. > > I agree with you here. I am mulling over a proposal for architecture > change in 2.3 > where we harden the toolchain by default and then dont have to keep > the securiry > band-aid. Opinion?
It is my intention to make a proposal in 2.3 that we provide more hardening by default. I'm in favour. Regards, Joshua -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
