From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ng0 <ng0@n0.is>
Subject: Re: hardening
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 14:36:37 +0000
Message-ID: <20180311143637.5cmjcqr6ugkznxsk@abyayala>
References: <87a7wwesx2.fsf@abyayala.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<871si6w76r.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20180311133732.ojqacszx2mckvdim@abyayala>
	<20180311134059.mwy6flojzvxxnnah@abyayala>
	<878tayu2ri.fsf@elephly.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44080)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ng0@n0.is>)
	id 1ev25V-0002f5-9K
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:36:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ng0@n0.is>) id 1ev25Q-00018C-Am
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:36:37 -0400
Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:34268)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ng0@n0.is>) id 1ev25Q-00017O-3k
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:36:32 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <878tayu2ri.fsf@elephly.net>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, ng0 <ng0@n0.is>

Ricardo Wurmus transcribed 486 bytes:
> 
> ng0 <ng0@n0.is> writes:
> 
> >> > The flags I use (suggested by Debian Wiki[0]) are:
> >> >
> >> >   CPPFLAGS=-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> >>
> >> How does this differ from "-O2 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE" in CFLAGS?
> >> I know O2 is optimization and that FORTIFY_SOURCE requires optimization
> >> to be specified.
> >
> > Okay, I've read some related commits and bug tickets, I understand
> > the difference now.
> 
> Please share.  Otherwise this comment isn’t really helpful for this
> discussion.

Well there's the Debian wiki: https://wiki.debian.org/Hardening
and https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=643632 as well
as the gcc Manual about it. Debian uses -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE -O1.
My use of -O2 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE in CFLAGS was not correct.

> 
> --
> Ricardo
> 
> 
> 

-- 
A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
https://n0.is