This is a discussion on Re: Enable gcc's -fstack-protector-all by default? - openssh ; Darren Tucker wrote: > Rick Jones wrote: > >> Darren Tucker wrote: > > [...] > >>> Can anyone think of a good reason not to enable it if the compiler >>> supports it? A quick test here shows minimal ...
Darren Tucker wrote:
> Rick Jones wrote:
>> Darren Tucker wrote:
>>> Can anyone think of a good reason not to enable it if the compiler
>>> supports it? A quick test here shows minimal difference in runtime over
>>> a full regress pass (~10sec over 8.5 minutes, and since the machine is
>>> not entirely idle that could be experimental error).
>> Is this stack protection architecture neutral?
> I'm not sure but I suspect that it is given that HPPA was (last time I
> looked) one of the main development platforms for gcc and that the
> documentation doesn't say anything about it being platforms specific.
> That said I haven't actually tried it on a stack-grows-up architecture
> like HPPA (and can't at the moment).
I had IA64 at the back of my mind more than HPPA
Just general conservativeness would seem to suggest that until a broader
number of platforms can be covered, it might not be time to become the
> WRT to the cookie entropy source, it uses a /dev/urandom if you have it,
> but failing that it will fall back to a static cookie, so it's weaker
> but not quite worthless if you don't have kernel random support.
openssh-unix-dev mailing list