From 4ca946c029f04ba3991ed0f1f65355a7a7840ff4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Khem Raj Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:52:41 +0000 Subject: security_flags: use -fstack-protector-strong This is a better version of -fstack-protector-all with reduced stack usage and better performance yet giving same amount of coverage. It's available in gcc 4.9 onwards. https://outflux.net/blog/archives/2014/01/27/fstack-protector-strong/ has more details. Signed-off-by: Khem Raj Signed-off-by: Ross Burton --- meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) (limited to 'meta/conf/distro') diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc index 72d31ba67b..5e0ef634bf 100644 --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc @@ -9,14 +9,14 @@ # -O0 which then results in a compiler warning. lcl_maybe_fortify = "${@base_conditional('DEBUG_BUILD','1','','-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2',d)}" -SECURITY_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-all -pie -fpie ${lcl_maybe_fortify}" -SECURITY_NO_PIE_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-all ${lcl_maybe_fortify}" +SECURITY_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong -pie -fpie ${lcl_maybe_fortify}" +SECURITY_NO_PIE_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong ${lcl_maybe_fortify}" -SECURITY_LDFLAGS ?= "-Wl,-z,relro,-z,now" -SECURITY_X_LDFLAGS ?= "-Wl,-z,relro" +SECURITY_LDFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong -Wl,-z,relro,-z,now" +SECURITY_X_LDFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong -Wl,-z,relro" # powerpc does not get on with pie for reasons not looked into as yet -SECURITY_CFLAGS_powerpc = "-fstack-protector-all ${lcl_maybe_fortify}" +SECURITY_CFLAGS_powerpc = "-fstack-protector-strong ${lcl_maybe_fortify}" # Deal with ppc specific linker failures when using the cflags SECURITY_CFLAGS_pn-dbus_powerpc = "" SECURITY_CFLAGS_pn-dbus-ptest_powerpc = "" -- cgit 1.2.3-korg