Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Friday, April 18, 2008 - 2:28 am

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:


you noticed it ;-) Distro maintainers will notice it too if it pops up 
when something breaks StackProtector. Normal user might not notice. (but 
normal user might not notice a few hundred guest roots either)

but ... the real thing that made it slip into your config was that it 
was default-enabled in x86/latest - the patch below should fix that.

we need the warning: it could have caught the toplevel Makefile change 
last October that broke StackProtector completely. So no, we wont be and 
cannot be silent about this anymore - we need and now have an end-to-end 
test about it.

	Ingo

------------------>
Subject: stackprotector: non default
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Date: Fri Apr 18 11:13:17 CEST 2008

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
---
 arch/x86/Kconfig |    1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-x86.q/arch/x86/Kconfig
===================================================================
--- linux-x86.q.orig/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ linux-x86.q/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -1146,7 +1146,6 @@ config CC_STACKPROTECTOR
 	bool "Enable -fstack-protector buffer overflow detection (EXPERIMENTAL)"
 	depends on X86_64
 	select CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
-	default y
 	help
           This option turns on the -fstack-protector GCC feature. This
 	  feature puts, at the beginning of functions, a canary value on
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 4:03 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Greg KH, (Thu Apr 17, 4:24 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Dan Williams, (Thu Apr 17, 4:24 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 4:40 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Paul Moore, (Thu Apr 17, 4:55 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 5:04 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 5:14 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Kay Sievers, (Thu Apr 17, 5:48 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 6:12 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 6:35 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Thu Apr 17, 8:05 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 9:07 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Arjan van de Ven, (Thu Apr 17, 10:49 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 11:10 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pekka Enberg, (Thu Apr 17, 11:40 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 11:56 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 12:09 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 12:19 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 12:24 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pekka Enberg, (Fri Apr 18, 12:25 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 12:28 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 12:37 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 12:50 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 12:53 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 12:57 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 2:22 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 2:28 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pavel Machek, (Fri Apr 18, 2:42 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, James Morris, (Fri Apr 18, 3:32 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pavel Machek, (Fri Apr 18, 4:07 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 4:46 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 5:18 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 5:34 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 5:41 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Fri Apr 18, 6:02 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 6:22 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Fri Apr 18, 6:27 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 7:47 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Paul Moore, (Fri Apr 18, 7:55 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Paul Moore, (Fri Apr 18, 7:57 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Alan Stern, (Fri Apr 18, 8:22 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 9:02 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Fri Apr 18, 2:54 pm)
2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Mon Apr 28, 9:42 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Andrew Morton, (Mon Apr 28, 9:59 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Mon Apr 28, 11:44 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 2:39 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 2:43 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 8:49 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 9:58 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Tue Apr 29, 2:37 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Wed Apr 30, 4:16 am)