Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 17:12:39 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pinter@hardenedbsd.org> Subject: Re: [CFdiscussion] ports and FORTIFY_SOURCE Message-ID: <20150902151239.GE61752@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <55E49E1E.2080005@FreeBSD.org> References: <55E49E1E.2080005@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--lteA1dqeVaWQ9QQl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:34:06PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > Dear ports developers; >=20 > This year I mentored Oliver Pinter's GSoC project [1] to port > FORTIFY_SOURCE to FreeBSD. The project was more complex than we > thought initially but it was successful. >=20 > For those of you that haven't heard of it, it's a trick supported by=20 > libc to enable bounds-checking on common string and memory functions. > The code has gone through extensive testing with both clang and the > base gcc. It should work fine with newer gcc but it is untested there. >=20 > To activate it you will just need to add -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3D1 (or 2) in > the CFLAGS and that will transparently add the extra checks. The code > is non invasive but some ports (firefox, emacs) actually choose to run > with this flag on by default and an exp-run found some errors in those > cases. >=20 > There are currently two remaining PRs with patches for mail/ifile=20 > (202572) and net-p2p/namecoin (2012603), getting those committed soon > would avoid traumas in the ports tree once FORTIFY_SOURCE is committed. >=20 > In the future it would be nice to support a flag within ports to enable > or disable this extra flag for specific ports. I am unsure exactly how > to do it, it could be something as simple as >=20 > USE_FORTIFY=3D yes > or as complex as > USES=3D compiler:fortify=3D0 > (0 disables it, 1 is standard for clang. 2 is standard for gcc) >=20 IMHO it should be done the exact same way as SSP was added. meaning always activated and ports that are not playing safely with it should explicitly disable it via: FORTIFY_UNSAFE=3Dyes and a WITHOUt_FORTIFY (like we have a WITHOUT_SSP) should be added for peop= le willing to entirely remove it. Bapt --lteA1dqeVaWQ9QQl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlXnEecACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EwQdgCffT7vMVak+Dz160XaM6Fej66S jnYAn22ast2/OmH+HZ8W22WTHFYLFzes =UuRe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lteA1dqeVaWQ9QQl--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150902151239.GE61752>