Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:24:15 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Kees Cook <kees@ubuntu.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: CC_STACKPROTECTOR vs CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
Message-ID: <20090429202415.GB21421@elte.hu>
References: <20090429195453.GE8586@outflux.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090429195453.GE8586@outflux.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 805
Lines: 21


* Kees Cook <kees@ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> What is the rationale for why CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL is forced when 
> using CC_STACKPROTECTOR?  I would have expected _ALL to be a 
> separate option (as it was in earlier versions), but it seems it 
> is forced on by commit 113c5413cf9051cc50b88befdc42e3402bb92115.

it used to be a separate option. I merged them into one, because we 
had too many options really, and because the vmsplice exploit would 
only have been caught by the _ALL variant. So the 'light' variant 
never really worked well IMO.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/