From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/6949 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: standalone fortify source implementation Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:33:06 -0500 Message-ID: <20150204163306.GW23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20150204160214.GA3717@cream.2f30.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423067602 24101 80.91.229.3 (4 Feb 2015 16:33:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:33:22 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-6962-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Feb 04 17:33:22 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YJ2tE-0001JP-Tv for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:33:21 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 8155 invoked by uid 550); 4 Feb 2015 16:33:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 8144 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2015 16:33:18 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:6949 Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:21:21PM +0100, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > 2015-02-04 17:02 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Papastamos : > > 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? This is the result of that collaboration. Rich