Re: CC_STACKPROTECTOR vs CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL

[Ingo Molnar]

* Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/