Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:52:36 +0200
From:      Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org>
To:        "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, rip@overflow.no, drosih@rpi.edu, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [fbsd] Re: [fbsd] Integrating ProPolice/SSP into FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <20060613155236.GL19457@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060610.001741.1021577364.imp@bsdimp.com>
References:  <4489DCAE.3070005@overflow.no> <20060609233148.GA88285@gothmog.pc> <p06230932c0afbc6f54dc@[128.113.24.47]> <20060610.001741.1021577364.imp@bsdimp.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

Thanks to everyone who gave me some feedback.

On 2006-06-09 16:40, Chris <rip@overflow.no> wrote:
> : >
> : >  > I'm using it successfuly with the stackp-gap and the random
> : >  > mmap on 6.1-RELEASE. No problems at all really :) Except
> : >  > that I want a nob for gcc to use the protection by default.
> : >  > We discussed this in another email.

Chris,

Yes, indeed.  I forgot to keep you in touch as I had promised,
nevertheless I have thought about it.

When I started my patch back in 2005, I did have an option to use
stack protector by default.  However, this led to an heavy ratio of
noise in the Makefiles, given the WITH_*/WITHOUT_* wasn't there yet
in that time.

If I add this now, I think it would be less intrusive than it was,
but only for CURRENT.  RELENG_6 still uses the old NO_* knobs, and
this would be a mess like it has been in the past.

Currently I am willing to maintain a patch for each branch.  There is
already a small gap between them and I really don't want to see it
become wider.

I could probably implement this stuff in CURRENT, but I am pretty
sure this would lead to a non-negligible number of RELENG_6 users
asking me why this hasn't been implemented for their branch.

IOW, I think I should prevent from implementing this option for the
moment, at least while RELENG_7 hasn't been branched.


On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 12:17:41AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <p06230932c0afbc6f54dc@[128.113.24.47]>
>             Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> writes:
> : At 2:31 AM +0300 6/10/06, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> : >You can always use `/etc/make.conf' to set it globally, right?
> : 
> : Not quite globally.  That will only set it for programs
> : whose makefiles .include /usr/share/mk/sys.mk .  That's
> : all of buildworld, but it wouldn't include programs that
> : people are building on their own.
> 
> Actually, all invocationso of make use /usr/share/mk/sys.mk.  It is
> global.  And therefore /etc/make.conf is included for all Makefiles in
> the system (except when one uses gmake :-).

I wanted to use share/mk/sys.mk for a while because it was indeed
read by make(1) upon each invocation, but meanwhile I was a little
reluctant because the SSP stuff has really nothing to do with what was
already living there.

Finally, I decided to be as little intrusive as I could and modified
bsd.sys.mk.  Thus GCC would be merely SSP-ready for all applications.
I added the required glue in Makefiles in order to make buildworld and
(most) ports work without any pain, with the help of WITH(OUT)_SSP.
It is up to the user to manage with the SSP flags if he uses gmake
or BSD make without bsd.prog.mk, bsd.lib.mk or bsd.port.mk.

(For pedantic people, I don't mean bsd.sys.mk is used for ports.
Actually I created bsd.ssp.mk which is included in both bsd.sys.mk
and bsd.port.mk.)


Thank you.
Best regards,
-- 
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060613155236.GL19457>