[LinuxBIOS] Fwd: Possible stack protect solutions (RESEND)

[ron minnich]

This patch will enable setting distro variables such as
-fno_stack_protector as needed. It is a simple patch to  buildtarget
and can be extended for other uses.

If this patch is acceptable then we can fix the various makefiles to
include the variable.

The only remaining question is the name -- is CPU_OPT really appropriate?

Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ron minnich 
Date: Dec 20, 2007 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Possible stack protect solutions
To: Jordan Crouse 
Cc: [e-mail]

Try this. This patch to buildtarget
1. sets up cpu opt for the no stack protector thing
2. sets up the makefiles for the target
3. the target builds
But it's not picking up CPU_OPT. So we MUST have the other patch that
ALWAYS includes CPU_OPT.

That said, I'd rather make the variable DISTRO_CC_OPT or some such.

Thanks

ron

[Stefan Reinauer]

* ron minnich  [080103 17:25]:
> This patch will enable setting distro variables such as
> -fno_stack_protector as needed. It is a simple patch to  buildtarget
> and can be extended for other uses.
>
> If this patch is acceptable then we can fix the various makefiles to
> include the variable.
>
> The only remaining question is the name -- is CPU_OPT really appropriate?

Why not make it CFLAGS? The C compiler is called CC in our environment,
too.
> Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich

Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer

Stefan

[LinuxBIOS] Fwd: Possible stack protect solutions (RESEND)

[ron minnich]

On Jan 3, 2008 9:12 AM, Stefan Reinauer  wrote:
> ron minnich  [080103 17:25]:
> > This patch will enable setting distro variables such as
> > -fno_stack_protector as needed. It is a simple patch to  buildtarget
> > and can be extended for other uses.
> >
> > If this patch is acceptable then we can fix the various makefiles to
> > include the variable.
> >
> > The only remaining question is the name -- is CPU_OPT really appropriate?
>
> Why not make it CFLAGS? The C compiler is called CC in our environment,
> too.

like this?

Tested on FC8 and works fine.

ron

[LinuxBIOS] Fwd: Possible stack protect solutions (RESEND)

[Jordan Crouse]

On 03/01/08 09:30 -0800, ron minnich wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 9:12 AM, Stefan Reinauer  wrote:
> > ron minnich  [080103 17:25]:
> > > This patch will enable setting distro variables such as
> > > -fno_stack_protector as needed. It is a simple patch to  buildtarget
> > > and can be extended for other uses.
> > >
> > > If this patch is acceptable then we can fix the various makefiles to
> > > include the variable.
> > >
> > > The only remaining question is the name -- is CPU_OPT really appropriate?
> >
> > Why not make it CFLAGS? The C compiler is called CC in our environment,
> > too.
>
> like this?
>
> Tested on FC8 and works fine.

Looks good to me.

Jordan

[LinuxBIOS] Fwd: Possible stack protect solutions (RESEND)

[Peter Stuge]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:30:06AM -0800, ron minnich wrote:
> Add the ability to extend CFLAGS as needed for several new distros
> Signed-off-by: Ronald G. Minnich

Acked-by: Peter Stuge
> Index: targets/buildtarget
>
> --- targets/buildtarget	(revision 3031)
> +++ targets/buildtarget	(working copy)
> @@ -53,4 +53,25 @@
>  export PYTHONPATH=$config_dir
>  $PYTHON $config_py $config_lb $lbpath
>
> +# now start checking for distro-specific breakage. 
> +## This check is for the no stack protector mess.
> +EXTRA_CFLAGS=
>
> +if [ -z "$CC" ]; then
>   CC=gcc
>
> +fi
>
> +$CC -fno-stack-protector -S -xc /dev/null -o .$$.tmp
>
> +if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
>   EXTRA_CFLAGS=-fno-stack-protector
>
> +fi
>
> +rm -rf .$$.tmp
>
> +for i in $build_dir/Makefile.settings $build_dir/*/Makefile.settings
> +do
> echo CFLAGS+=$EXTRA_CFLAGS >>$i
>
> +done
>
> exit $?

[LinuxBIOS] Fwd: Possible stack protect solutions (RESEND)

[Myles Watson]

On Jan 3, 2008 10:30 AM, ron minnich  wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 9:12 AM, Stefan Reinauer  wrote:
> > ron minnich  [080103 17:25]:
> > > This patch will enable setting distro variables such as
> > > -fno_stack_protector as needed. It is a simple patch to  buildtarget
> > > and can be extended for other uses.
> > >
> > > If this patch is acceptable then we can fix the various makefiles to
> > > include the variable.
> > >
> > > The only remaining question is the name -- is CPU_OPT really appropriate?
> >
> > Why not make it CFLAGS? The C compiler is called CC in our environment,
> > too.
>
> like this?
>
> Tested on FC8 and works fine.

This patch adds -fno-stack-protector to my FLAGS too, even though I
don't need them.  It still builds, with or without the patch.

Myles
> ron

[LinuxBIOS] Fwd: Possible stack protect solutions (RESEND)

[Myles Watson]

On Jan 3, 2008 10:30 AM, ron minnich  wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 9:12 AM, Stefan Reinauer  wrote:
> > ron minnich  [080103 17:25]:
> > > This patch will enable setting distro variables such as
> > > -fno_stack_protector as needed. It is a simple patch to  buildtarget
> > > and can be extended for other uses.
> > >
> > > If this patch is acceptable then we can fix the various makefiles to
> > > include the variable.
> > >
> > > The only remaining question is the name -- is CPU_OPT really appropriate?
> >
> > Why not make it CFLAGS? The C compiler is called CC in our environment,
> > too.
>
> like this?
>
> Tested on FC8 and works fine.

This patch adds -fno-stack-protector to my FLAGS too, even though I
don't need them.  It still builds, with or without the patch.

Myles
> ron
> linuxbios mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios