On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:58PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
>
> Subject: kbuild: allow -fstack-protector to take effect
>
> to the 2.6.24-stable tree. Its filename is
>
> kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch
>
> A git repo of this tree can be found at
> http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
Is this wise given this thread.. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/101 ?
At least until the problem is understood, not enabling this seems like
a better option for -stable
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:06:04PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:58PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
> >
> > Subject: kbuild: allow -fstack-protector to take effect
> >
> > to the 2.6.24-stable tree. Its filename is
> >
> > kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch
> >
> > A git repo of this tree can be found at
> > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
>
> Is this wise given this thread.. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/101 ?
>
> At least until the problem is understood, not enabling this seems like
> a better option for -stable
I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
Makefile change.
Or am I wrong here? If so, I'll gladly drop it. Arjan? Sam?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:18:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:06:04PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:58PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
> > >
> > > Subject: kbuild: allow -fstack-protector to take effect
> > >
> > > to the 2.6.24-stable tree. Its filename is
> > >
> > > kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch
> > >
> > > A git repo of this tree can be found at
> > > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> >
> > Is this wise given this thread.. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/101 ?
> >
> > At least until the problem is understood, not enabling this seems like
> > a better option for -stable
>
> I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
> Makefile change.
At the least we'll likely want to also pick up the other stack protector fixes
that went into .25rc if we turn it on in .24
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:34:07PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:18:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:06:04PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:58PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
> > > >
> > > > Subject: kbuild: allow -fstack-protector to take effect
> > > >
> > > > to the 2.6.24-stable tree. Its filename is
> > > >
> > > > kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch
> > > >
> > > > A git repo of this tree can be found at
> > > > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> > >
> > > Is this wise given this thread.. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/101 ?
> > >
> > > At least until the problem is understood, not enabling this seems like
> > > a better option for -stable
> >
> > I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
> > Makefile change.
>
> At the least we'll likely want to also pick up the other stack protector fixes
> that went into .25rc if we turn it on in .24
Hm, that sounds like a new feature :)
I thought the makefile change was just a bugfix in the broken makefile.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:42:16PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
> > > Makefile change.
> >
> > At the least we'll likely want to also pick up the other stack protector fixes
> > that went into .25rc if we turn it on in .24
>
> Hm, that sounds like a new feature :)
>
> I thought the makefile change was just a bugfix in the broken makefile.
Well, it is. But it'll cause it to enable something that has been broken for a while.
FWIW, I think having the stack protector reenabled in -stable is a worthwhile goal,
but only once it's stabilised for a while in the development tree.
My fear by just reenabling this for -stable is that when distros push out updates
based on the latest -stable, we'll see more systems like James' problematic system.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:59:14PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:42:16PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > > > I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
> > > > Makefile change.
> > >
> > > At the least we'll likely want to also pick up the other stack protector fixes
> > > that went into .25rc if we turn it on in .24
> >
> > Hm, that sounds like a new feature :)
> >
> > I thought the makefile change was just a bugfix in the broken makefile.
>
> Well, it is. But it'll cause it to enable something that has been broken for a while.
> FWIW, I think having the stack protector reenabled in -stable is a worthwhile goal,
> but only once it's stabilised for a while in the development tree.
>
> My fear by just reenabling this for -stable is that when distros push out updates
> based on the latest -stable, we'll see more systems like James' problematic system.
Fair enough, between this worry, and Arjan saying "no way", I've now
dropped it :)
thanks,
greg k-h