Stack Smashing Protection - are we obsolete?
arekm at maven.pl
Fri Sep 18 21:57:46 CEST 2015
On Friday 18 of September 2015, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> I've been searching this for an hour now but can't find any discussion on
> this - why do we have (rpm/macros.pld.in)
> %_ssp_cflags -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
> instead superior -fstack-protector-strong which seems to be taken as
> default in many distros, even on gcc level?
Looks like our version was used by distros back then... I have no problems
with switching to -fstack-protector-strong.
"Prior to GCC 4.9, `-fstack-protector --param ssp-buffer-size=4' is used to
cover functions that defines a 4 or more byte local character array, which is
an okay balance for security and performance. For those who want to protect
all the functions then -fstack-protector-all is recommended.
Since GCC 4.9, -fstack-protector-strong, an improved version of -fstack-
protector is introduced, which covers all the more paranoid conditions that
might lead to a stack overflow but not trade performance like -fstack-
protector-all, thus it becomes default."
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )
More information about the pld-devel-en