From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751101AbWGCNHb (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:07:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751119AbWGCNHb (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:07:31 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]:3968 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751101AbWGCNHa (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:07:30 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=gN4y4hc83++RDtMyrwn8QCB186okbGhZaDmz/DvenlCo7wFtzA4TXbKueWsz1Ou/dGZQ5952I7SBuBCSx7GoXAdwfgT19H5SxQNB1MR+/BBFkHXf01koMOWAUCCGfJk5US/GzG8vKN5htqysQxOdxFruoV3CG3BOy3zen2Y0xTI= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:07:29 -0700 From: "Miles Lane" To: "Ingo Molnar" Subject: Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail' Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" , "Andrew Morton" , LKML In-Reply-To: <20060703051723.GA13415@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1151788673.3195.58.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1151789342.3195.60.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1151826131.3111.5.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060703051723.GA13415@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/2/06, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Miles Lane wrote: > > > >If Ubuntu patched gcc rather than just putting it in the build > > >environment... then you should switch to a less braindead distribution > > >really ;) > > > Well, from the web page referenced at the top of this message, you can > > see that they are already aware of these issues: > > > > Cons: > > * It breaks current upstream kernel builds and potentially > > other direct usages of gcc. Kernel is by far the most important use > > case. Upstream should change the default options to build with > > -fno-stack-protector by default. > > * It is not conformant to upstream gcc behaviour. > > i think the only sane way for a generic distro to introduce an intrusive > security feature is a 3-phase process: > > #1 - introduce the new security option > #2 - increase use of it gradually, map all the exceptions on the way > #3 - once exceptions are mapped widely enough, switch the option to > default-on > > this makes the introduction of security seemless/gradual to > users/developers, without compromising on the end goal of having the > security feature on by default. > > Ubuntu seems to have opted to go to phase #3 directly, which is no doubt > quite brutal but it's their choice. In any case, whichever methodology > is used the kernel got flagged as an "exception" and we should help this > security effort and change the kernel: i.e. lets apply the > -fno-stack-protector flag to the kernel build. Well, I see that Andrew has accepted (mm5) the -fno-stack-protector patch for the Makefile, but klibc remains unpatched (scripts/Kbuild.klibc and usr/klibc/arch/i386/MCONFIG). Would the right person in this dialog submit those changes to Andrew? Many thanks, Miles