Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default?
Date: 2012-09-16 14:36:13
Message-ID: 5055E3DD.3060207@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 09/16/2012 12:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 appears to be the default for package building on many
>> Linux distributions now, as part of harding or security options. But we
>> often hear about problems related to this only when we hand the source
>> over to the packagers. So I think we might as well add this to our
>> standard compilation options, for example in src/include/port/linux.h.
>> What do you think?
> Doesn't seem like a good idea to me to add platform-specific options
> with unspecified effects to platform-independent upstream sources.
>
> To the extent that this option finds anything useful (which in my
> experience is a negligibly small percentage anyway), it's the
> responsibility of the packagers (including me) to report it.
>
>

Might be worth having a buildfarm animal or two building with it, say by
setting CFLAGS before configure?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-09-16 15:26:02 Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2012-09-16 14:23:14 Re: embedded list v2