On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
wrote:
> Ever thought about integrating PaX [0] per default in Debian?
> I'm however not sure how much this actually breaks ;)
Any idea if these patches will be merged upstream?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNS
Hi.
Ever thought about integrating PaX [0] per default in Debian?
I'm however not sure how much this actually breaks ;)
Cheers,
Chris.
[0] http://pax.grsecurity.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 01:36:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Kees Cook:
> > I would like to propose enabling[1] the GCC hardening patches that Ubuntu
> > uses[2].
>
> Seems a good idea to me. But I think we should defer the required
> full archive rebuild until we've got the hardening
Hi everyone!
I am a college student in HIT(Harbin Institute of Technology) as well as
freshman in Debian.
I major in Computer Science, hoping to get into Debian Project to sharp
practical abilities.
In a word, I am begging for your help! Anything on compiler will be ok.
Thanks again!!!
--- Comment #16 from dl9pf at gmx dot de 2009-10-26 12:29 ---
Confirmed also for 4.4.1 on arm-linux-gnueabi.
--
dl9pf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
* Kees Cook:
> I would like to propose enabling[1] the GCC hardening patches that Ubuntu
> uses[2].
Seems a good idea to me. But I think we should defer the required
full archive rebuild until we've got the hardening patch for operator
new[] (which currently can return a heap block which is smal
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:14:25AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I would like to propose enabling[1] the GCC hardening patches that Ubuntu
> > uses[2].
>
> How do they work? Do they also change the free-standing compiler or only
> the
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-26 11:23 ---
Can't reproduce.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41621
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ramana at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #12 from kirill at shutemov dot name 2009-10-26 11:06 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Did it fix your binutils testsuite failures ?
Yes, it did.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC
--- Comment #11 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-26 10:36 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section
> > anchors
> > on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> I would like to propose enabling[1] the GCC hardening patches that Ubuntu
> uses[2].
How do they work? Do they also change the free-standing compiler or only
the hosted one? There is a lot of software, which (I would say) missuse
the hos
> On Monday 26 October 2009 09:22:26 Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > I would like to propose enabling[1] the GCC hardening patches that Ubuntu
> > > uses[2].
> >
> > Seconded.
>
> Thirded.
>
+1.
Thanks for bringing this up,
Michael
pgpcMDHNXCorM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
13 matches
Mail list logo
