On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> Personally I'm using the hardened profile already and find the
> performance penalties negligible for a desktop user, and someone trying
> to run realtime on defaults is likely suicidal anyway.
I suspect what keeps people away from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/07/2013 05:11 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:10:42 + (UTC)
> Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
>> Ryan Hill wrote:
>>>
>>> * -fstack-protector{-all}
>>> No thank you. -fstack-protector has very limited coverage
>>
>> I'd say it covers m
On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:10:42 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> > * -fstack-protector{-all}
> > No thank you. -fstack-protector has very limited coverage
>
> I'd say it covers most cases where bugs can be made,
> practically without a severe impact on execution time or cod
Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> Is there any kind of information about performance penalty of
> -fstack-protector? I have googled some time and there are various
> estimations (from ~2 to ~8%), but I have no idea what have they checked
> exactly.
This depends extremely on the code: Most functions will be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/07/2013 01:25 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:13:28 +0200
> Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> during an irc debate, me and other people just noticed that the default
>> profile could use more flags to enhance the security
El sáb, 07-09-2013 a las 14:37 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Martin Vaeth
> wrote:
> > Ryan Hill wrote:
> >>
> >> * -fstack-protector{-all}
> >> No thank you. -fstack-protector has very limited coverage
> >
> > I'd say it covers most cases where bugs can be made
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Martin Vaeth
wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>>
>> * -fstack-protector{-all}
>> No thank you. -fstack-protector has very limited coverage
>
> I'd say it covers most cases where bugs can be made,
> practically without a severe impact on execution time or code size.
> In
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Security does not come from the compiler. There is no compiler flag
> that magically makes insecure code secure.
But there are flags which can catch some frequent code bugs which
perhaps some less careful upstream overlooked or is not aware of.
Moreover, the flags can c
Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> * -fstack-protector{-all}
> No thank you. -fstack-protector has very limited coverage
I'd say it covers most cases where bugs can be made,
practically without a severe impact on execution time or code size.
In contrast, -fstack-protector-all should be left to hardened, since
On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:13:28 +0200
Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> during an irc debate, me and other people just noticed that the default
> profile could use more flags to enhance the security.
>
> An hint is here:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ToolChain/CompilerFlags
>
> Please argue about
# Pacho Ramos (07 Sep 2013)
# Fails to build with gcc-4.7, no release since 2009,
# nothing in the tree needs it. Removal in a month.
net-irc/ezbounce
# Pacho Ramos (07 Sep 2013)
# Upstream looks dead, lots of unattended bugs needing
# patches (#369007, #444135, #446424, #458856).
# Removal in a
Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> Note that...
>
> grep foo bar.txt
>
> ...returns colour-highlighted text, while...
>
> grep foo bar.txt > output.txt
>
> ...returns plain text. So it can be done properly for everybody.
No, it cannot be done properly for everybody:
grep foo bar.txt | tee output.txt
Unf
12 matches
Mail list logo
