From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 09:10:29 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2, 2/2] lxc: fix build without stack protector In-Reply-To: <20181204055439.rhfgmyb6w7ijykx6@sapphire.tkos.co.il> References: <20181203223855.10152-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> <20181203223855.10152-2-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> <20181204055439.rhfgmyb6w7ijykx6@sapphire.tkos.co.il> Message-ID: <20181204091029.01a78c0e@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, +Arnout, Peter, Yann in Cc. On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:54:39 +0200, Baruch Siach wrote: > > +LXC_CONF_ENV = ax_cv_check_cflags__Werror__fstack_protector_strong=no > > Can't we make this depend on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_SSP? See the packages ntp or > sox, for example. The question is whether we want SSP support to be enabled as soon as the toolchain *has* SSP support, or only when the user explicitly request SSP support using BR2_SSP_{REGULAR,STRONG,ALL} ? This is a real policy decision: - Do we let the packages default to what they think is good (of course as long as the toolchain provides what's needed) ? - Or do we enforce the system-level configuration options that Buildroot has ? Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com