[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-08-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-08-01 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > I don't think we should be adding -lssp automatically. > -mstack-protector-guard= > is meant mainly for kernel or special purpose libraries, libssp.a we build >

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-08-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Not to mention that -mstack-protector-guard= option is a target option (x86, rs6000 and powerpcspe only), so it doesn't belong into gcc.c.

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-08-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- I don't think we should be adding -lssp automatically. -mstack-protector-guard= is meant mainly for kernel or special purpose libraries, libssp.a we build in gcc is just one of the many possible

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-08-01 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6) > TLS canary is initialized by the libc; in Glibc sources you can grep for > THREAD_STACK_SET_GUARD. > > In this example the leftmost byte of the SSP canary is

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-07-31 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-07-31 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-07-13 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Chris Severance from comment #3) > Unless there's a security reason 0 should never be used as a canary value. > Errant \0 should be caught 100% of the time. When I built malloc canaries > for

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-07-12 Thread gccbugzilla.severach at spamgourmet dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 --- Comment #3 from Chris Severance --- Unless there's a security reason 0 should never be used as a canary value. Errant \0 should be caught 100% of the time. When I built malloc canaries for NPPTextFX I expressly avoided \0.

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-07-12 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

2017-07-12 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|