Am 30.06.2011 15:36, schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:19:10PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> as far as i can see fedora is built with "-fstack-protector" and not
>>> "-fstack-protector-all" - is there a specific r
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:19:10PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > as far as i can see fedora is built with "-fstack-protector" and not
> > "-fstack-protector-all" - is there a specific reason for not using
> > the "all" variant
>
>
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:19:10PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> as far as i can see fedora is built with "-fstack-protector" and not
> "-fstack-protector-all" - is there a specific reason for not using
> the "all" variant
Sure, it is expensive to set up the canary even when it is obvious
it isn't
hi
as far as i can see fedora is built with "-fstack-protector" and not
"-fstack-protector-all" - is there a specific reason for not using
the "all" variant or is it safe to rebuild server-packages with it?
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/ssp.txt
> The GCC options for SSP ar
