On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> In my Makefile ...
>
> stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE) := -fno-stack-protector
> stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR) := -fstack-protector
> stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG) := -fstack-protect
2018-04-14 3:11 GMT+09:00 Linus Torvalds :
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> How about something like this instead:
>
> I'd rather avoid the ifdef's in the Makefile if at all possible.
>
> I'd rather expose this as a Kconfig rule, and in the Kconfig just have
> an entry som
2018-04-14 1:41 GMT+09:00 Kees Cook :
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Masahiro Yamada
> wrote:
>> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE) := -fno-stack-protector
>> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR) := -fstack-protector
>> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ST
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> config STACKPROTECTOR_FLAGS
> string
> default "-fstack-protector-strong" if CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
> default "-fstack-protector" if CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> default "-fno-stack-protector" if CC_HAS_STACKPRO
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> How about something like this instead:
I'd rather avoid the ifdef's in the Makefile if at all possible.
I'd rather expose this as a Kconfig rule, and in the Kconfig just have
an entry something like this
config STACKPROTECTOR_FLAGS
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE) := -fno-stack-protector
> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR) := -fstack-protector
> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG) := -fstack-protector-strong
> +
> +KB
Move the test for -fstack-protector(-strong) option to Kconfig.
If the compiler does not support the option, the corresponding menu
is automatically hidden. If STRONG is not supported, it will fall
back to REGULAR. If REGULAR is not supported, it will be disabled.
This means, AUTO is implicitly
7 matches
Mail list logo
