Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH 21/30] stack-protector: test compiler capability in Kconfig and drop AUTO mode




2018-04-14 1:41 GMT+09:00 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE) := -fno-stack-protector
>> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR)          := -fstack-protector
>> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG)   := -fstack-protector-strong
>> +
>> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(stackp-flags-y)
>
> So, technically, this works just fine. I wonder if it has an overly
> confusing result, in that the compiler under normal situations will
> see:
>
> gcc ... -fno-stack-protector -fstack-protector -fstack-protector-strong ...


Kees, you are wrong.

Look at my code closely.

I used := operator instead of +=.

$(stackp-flags-y) contains only one flag at most.



> How about something like this instead:
>
> ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fstack-protector-strong
> else
> ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fstack-protector
> else
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-stack-protector
> endif
> endif
>

My code is much cleaner, and working fine.



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada