On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:21:30AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 08:46 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 07:48:50AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
> >>And following the legitimate concerns about stack-protector this was raised
by ARM into core Linaro as an urgent action for which engineering resource is being
assigned to correct this deficiency ASAP. Thus within a day an issue has been noted that
we were unaware of and is being worked through a process to correct it, as would be the
case with any deficiency on x86. The stack protection stuff will be fixed. Let's bike
shed over the next nitpick nuance that the anti-ARM crowd want to throw in the way ;)
> >Was the flag ignored previously or why was this missing feature not
> Please see:
> Per Carlos's email, the flag is not ignored, the feature is there,
> but it isn't as fully featured. Specifically stack guards are
> present but pointer guards are not. This was news to all of us.
Stack guards are present, but using libssp, which is the fallback way,
second class citizen and most likely slower than the standard way.
Am I missing something about using libssp? It is literally a library,
correct? Can you tell me which package provides it in Fedora? The
gcc package removes libssp* unconditionally, so it isn't provided from
that and I can't find a stand-alone libssp package.