[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150204162611.GA23974@cream.2f30.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:26:11 +0000
From: Dimitris Papastamos <sin@...0.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: standalone fortify source implementation
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:21:21PM +0100, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> 2015-02-04 17:02 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Papastamos <sin@...0.org>:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I have been working on a standalone fortify source implementation[0] that
> > uses GCC's #include_next to overlay over the system headers. The current
> > implementation has been tested against musl libc and OpenBSD's libc.
> >
> > This implementation only supports _FORTIFY_SOURCE=1. Level 2 is the same
> > as level 1. If this is to be used by default on a system it makes sense
> > to only catch cases where UB would be invoked (level 1) rather than trap
> > on suspicious but legal code (level 2).
>
> Rich is planning this type of functionality:
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2013/08/30/1
>
> Isn't it better to establish a collaboration here?
Yes this is intended to be an implementation of that idea. I found
out about this open issue from the musl wiki[0].
[0] http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/Open_Issues#Substitute_for_FORTIFY_SOURCE
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
