On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:38:32 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > The problem I see is that anyone who wants to switch to having
> > -fstack-protector enabled by default early will run into the glibc
> > problem (much as I did), when all the bug
On 06/13/2014 14:08, Greg Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> add the strip-flags statement to the ebuild and be done
>> with it
>
> To do it "greenly" we'd obviously want to know the precise surface
> area of the problem and then to correctly express those cir
On 06/13/2014 14:41, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 06/13/2014 14:08, Greg Turner wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> add the strip-flags statement to the ebuild and be done
>>> with it
>>
>> To do it "greenly" we'd obviously want to know the precise surface
>> area of th
On 06/13/2014 14:08, Greg Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> add the strip-flags statement to the ebuild and be done
>> with it
>
> To do it "greenly" we'd obviously want to know the precise surface
> area of the problem and then to correctly express those cir
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> add the strip-flags statement to the ebuild and be done
> with it
To do it "greenly" we'd obviously want to know the precise surface
area of the problem and then to correctly express those circumstances
in eblit code that could stand up to th
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> The problem I see is that anyone who wants to switch to having
> -fstack-protector enabled by default early will run into the glibc
> problem (much as I did), when all the bug reports that point out the
> problem have been closed as INVALID.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:43:55 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:23:15 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
> > Will bug #332823 and its ilk somehow be mitigated? Emerging glibc
> > with -fstack-protector still leads to similar problems. There
> > doesn't currently seem to be a bug repor
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:23:15 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Will bug #332823 and its ilk somehow be mitigated? Emerging glibc with
> -fstack-protector still leads to similar problems. There doesn't
> currently seem to be a bug report about this that isn't marked INVALID.
Bugzilla seems to be down
torsdag 12 juni 2014 03.45.23 skrev Greg Turner:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > Will bug #332823 and its ilk somehow be mitigated? Emerging glibc with
> > -fstack-protector still leads to similar problems. There doesn't
> > currently seem to be a bug report about thi
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
> Will bug #332823 and its ilk somehow be mitigated? Emerging glibc with
> -fstack-protector still leads to similar problems. There doesn't
> currently seem to be a bug report about this that isn't marked INVALID.
Is this a bug/limitation i
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:47:50 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> v2: Restrict by arch
> --
>
> Title: GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector
> Author: Ryan Hill
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Posted: 2014-06-10
> Revision: 1
> News-Item-Format: 1.0
> Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-4.8.3
> Display-If
v2: Restrict by arch
--
Title: GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector
Author: Ryan Hill
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2014-06-10
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-4.8.3
Display-If-Keyword: amd64
Display-If-Keyword: arm
Display-If-Keyword: mips
Display-If-
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:22:11 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
> > -fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
> > an error on hppa? Maybe give
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:48:53 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 06/10/14 10:35, Magnus Granberg wrote:
> > tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
> >> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
> >>
> >> Ryan Hill wrote:
> >>> Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc its
On 06/10/14 10:35, Magnus Granberg wrote:
tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
-fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
an error
On 06/10/14 08:22, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
-fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
an error on hppa? Maybe give 4.8.2-r1 a whirl.
Setting -fstac
tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
>
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
> > -fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
> > an error on hppa? Maybe give 4.8.2-r
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
> -fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
> an error on hppa? Maybe give 4.8.2-r1 a whirl.
Setting -fstack-protector on HPPA does this:
warnin
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 04:31:27 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 18:16:02 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > Beginning with GCC 4.8.3, Stack Smashing Protection (SSP) will be
> > enabled by default.[..]
>
> .. on supported architectures.
>
>
> Right?
Yes. But now you've got me wor
19 matches
Mail list logo
