From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Ghw2U-000577-DP for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:36:58 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ghw2S-000545-Bq for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:36:56 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ghw2R-00052k-JH for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:36:55 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ghw2P-0004yR-5S; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:36:53 -0500 Received: from [80.190.231.112] (helo=khepri.openbios.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1Ghw2J-0007uW-TV; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:36:48 -0500 Received: from stepan by khepri.openbios.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ghw2G-0007A5-HF; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:36:44 +0100 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:36:44 +0100 From: Stefan Reinauer To: Thomas Schwinge , bug-hurd@gnu.org, grub-devel@gnu.org Message-ID: <20061108223644.GA22287@coresystems.de> References: <20061108214054.GU32338@fencepost> <20061108221419.GA19550@bouh.residence.ens-lyon.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20061108221419.GA19550@bouh.residence.ens-lyon.fr> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.18-rc5-1.5-default on an x86_64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: Subject: Re: Stack protection via GCC's `-fstack-protector' X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:36:57 -0000 Hi, * Samuel Thibault [061108 23:14]: > Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 08 Nov 2006 22:40:54 +0100, a écrit : > > then cat gnumach-undef-bad; exit 2; else true; fi > > stack_chk_fail > > > > Is it feasible to have the `-fstack-protector' functionality in GNU Mach > > and GRUB2 (and how to do that, then) or shall we unconditionally pass > > `-fno-stack-protector' if available? > > I'd say it shouldn't be very hard to provide a stack_chk_fail function, > even if all it does is just panic(). wont this add unnecessary bloat to the binary? No, not the function calling panic. Or are we seriously concerned about buffer overflows in the bootloader? S. -- coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br. Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613 Email: info@coresystems.de • http://www.coresystems.de/