From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7569771B1 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:21:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.15.2/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id w7T9LDXV018642 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Aug 2018 02:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.162.202] (128.224.162.202) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 02:21:12 -0700 To: Peter Kjellerstedt , "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" References: <1535533498-36841-1-git-send-email-hongxu.jia@windriver.com> <1535533498-36841-2-git-send-email-hongxu.jia@windriver.com> From: Hongxu Jia Message-ID: <7519fb76-4424-9904-e87a-8dc1dc5746e3@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 17:21:11 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] security_flags.inc: add var-FSTACK_PROTECTOR to improve variable OVERRIDES X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:21:15 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0A06E9A43D7BB95CBEF4C79A" Content-Language: en-US --------------0A06E9A43D7BB95CBEF4C79A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2018年08月29日 17:18, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: >> -SECURITY_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong ${SECURITY_PIE_CFLAGS} ${lcl_maybe_fortify} ${SECURITY_STRINGFORMAT}" >> -SECURITY_NO_PIE_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong ${lcl_maybe_fortify} ${SECURITY_STRINGFORMAT}" >> +FSTACK_PROTECTOR ?= "-fstack-protector-strong" > May I suggest to call it SECURITY_STACK_PROTECTOR instead? That aligns > it better with the other variables. > I am no objection on it, after collection the reply, I will send V2 to tweak it //Hongxu --------------0A06E9A43D7BB95CBEF4C79A Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 2018年08月29日 17:18, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
-SECURITY_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong ${SECURITY_PIE_CFLAGS} ${lcl_maybe_fortify} ${SECURITY_STRINGFORMAT}"
-SECURITY_NO_PIE_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong ${lcl_maybe_fortify} ${SECURITY_STRINGFORMAT}"
+FSTACK_PROTECTOR ?= "-fstack-protector-strong"

May I suggest to call it SECURITY_STACK_PROTECTOR instead? That aligns 
it better with the other variables.

I am no objection on it, after collection the reply, I

will send V2 to tweak it

//Hongxu

--------------0A06E9A43D7BB95CBEF4C79A--