Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Provide way to actually disable stack protector

2020-06-26 Thread Kees Cook
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:04:33AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:37 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:33:53AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > Is it OK to not patch syscall_x32.c ? > > > > Good question. Peter? (It seems all the syscall_*.c

Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Provide way to actually disable stack protector

2020-06-26 Thread Masahiro Yamada
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:37 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:33:53AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:02 AM Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > Some builds of GCC enable stack protector by default. Simply removing > > > the arguments is not sufficient to

Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Provide way to actually disable stack protector

2020-06-22 Thread Kees Cook
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:33:53AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:02 AM Kees Cook wrote: > > > > Some builds of GCC enable stack protector by default. Simply removing > > the arguments is not sufficient to disable stack protector, as the stack > > protector for those

Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Provide way to actually disable stack protector

2020-06-22 Thread Masahiro Yamada
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:02 AM Kees Cook wrote: > > Some builds of GCC enable stack protector by default. Simply removing > the arguments is not sufficient to disable stack protector, as the stack > protector for those GCC builds must be explicitly disabled. (Removing the > arguments is left

[PATCH] kbuild: Provide way to actually disable stack protector

2020-06-22 Thread Kees Cook
Some builds of GCC enable stack protector by default. Simply removing the arguments is not sufficient to disable stack protector, as the stack protector for those GCC builds must be explicitly disabled. (Removing the arguments is left as-is just to be sure there are no ordering problems. If