From nobody Tue Jan 28 13:42:28 2025 X-Original-To: dev-commits-src-all@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Yj60y4Fmzz5lS9q; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:42:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-f48.google.com (mail-io1-f48.google.com [209.85.166.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "WR4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Yj60x6b5nz3QcN; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:42:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM" header.from=freebsd.org (policy=none) Received: by mail-io1-f48.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-844bff5ba1dso423352439f.1; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 05:42:41 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1738071760; x=1738676560; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iiLTcjIjltCCqjukfbY/jKch8JXkIh8svEGD9YDg2po=; b=iPouJ0Nf2hiC4o3EoMrb7goa4/YeMDUUiK4ZXCMGktlzoT90BRnDe50Sgiy6uD1lO7 b96ow3zI6lI51K5wduD6AoMw2DtLPZA8/sepfCaCSEFBlvjSwvP6rVttoSYbq1TV1MF8 oXnB+7n/xocZCz+s6ve41B1f4+qm0qFLXVgXd86X2aBCKEY8YuhvtAEc5axxLwL48xby RlEn6xd/1kxWj6I/lMRKOOk8OQoDnGAEEJyMjUWoO1195xV992qbecuLOBu7MKSKCwsT LVLZvVZ6m7kiylyH96KVB+lXiWV69YYOhWAVnBATKm6tQKRfcNMq7Jr7lQcZmgrpHVio BwTQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW8dQhOLTtNkPv2AnhPWeiZPnrhwVvNe+R6Vd0r1MFdOQKFgXC+dSO/k711BSFncQoie2HtXnfi9CynW2j+fTcwe6YLPlo=@freebsd.org, AJvYcCWMNrXm+2v1Y0YwUuBBl3OFtorj3SZnAooGelGdVemqyR0Z0YbSI/lXBH6LqIwRKJX6R16wzuWGYTxvlWWPt5otO8jM@freebsd.org, AJvYcCWPj3zMklQkUQdtj3tpymOMErw9vZ3nrNs+7yFH6l9t301Ck7bnkuo5MLXLLsnnriZv+fJLZDkGtku3O2L0LQg=@freebsd.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzMhPlTfKbnPf5gAfq2PEv2rBfhVpak/kp08DATSSx+gPZE7NGN PC87iprNF4Vncs2+AdbljGMsGldCFFty3Lg9bpbLcJMSX0w0s/utRc7NOZ/pLlOm0nTFUoxfPRK MrfqOCz3AwNl6zeTwNhu4fDMiluU/zw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncs9E4u+c1rqTayOALlO6JP3L6zsCNsRomtaUyhiEaa3wRiJwZXcUxtZvF2MSbL yNDZPFDZbRR0VcGRAoXsYwh4yYZscSx5S5mulC/QIxCV1OOVxr6VXchdcoY9UAPWe7mVw0huS6W MWJ1gvjgSE4WkhAZZQNlpTGL1tCkNhOAc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFplDleIgzPTOUexm3upeRsp77jKBzi6zNGgs1a2CtZMrrYayFIWdUospWAxqk4mcp6/sd86B1c1MDzyGpfgP8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:751a:b0:843:ec18:82e2 with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-851b623f79bmr3931602039f.8.1738071760520; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 05:42:40 -0800 (PST) List-Id: Commit messages for all branches of the src repository List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/dev-commits-src-all List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org Sender: owner-dev-commits-src-all@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202501251308.50PD8Qsg042260@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <81A8E695-5034-4945-8D07-DF95E76904D0@freebsd.org> <9fec6bfae287dfc123a359c3e1164ae2@FreeBSD.org> <6C70A3E0-CC6D-4B0B-96A8-70636F08AC6B@freebsd.org> <3e0e88c0031d9c3e1f6232f2949f8909@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3e0e88c0031d9c3e1f6232f2949f8909@FreeBSD.org> From: Ed Maste Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:42:28 -0500 X-Gm-Features: AWEUYZls7Pr-jJP-Vo-r_YMmrEW6parZs-Qmd_bD_7EB5M-rWH-UlfNxkV_i8b0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: git: f934e629dc22 - main - Add stack clash protection to the WITH_SSP flag To: Alexander Leidinger Cc: Jessica Clarke , src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.47 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; RBL_SENDERSCORE_REPUT_6(1.00)[209.85.166.48:from]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.87)[-0.866]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; BAD_REP_POLICIES(0.10)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[freebsd.org : SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM,none]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.166.48:from]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org,dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.166.48:from]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; R_SPF_ALLOW(0.00)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[carpeddiem]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5] X-Spamd-Bar: - X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Yj60x6b5nz3QcN On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 at 07:38, Alexander Leidinger wr= ote: > > Am 2025-01-25 20:21, schrieb Jessica Clarke: > > > It looks like with Clang we end up using -Qunused-arguments so the > > warning/error is suppressed. That at least means the build doesn=E2=80= =99t > > fail, which I suppose is good, but I=E2=80=99m not sure we should be pr= omising > > that WITH_SSP will protect against stack clash then having the compiler > > silently emit unprotected code (for which we=E2=80=99re to blame, by te= lling it > > to ignore the fact it=E2=80=99s not supported). This at least needs to = be > > documented that the protection will only be provided if supported by > > the compiler. I suppose we should add support for stack clash to COMPILER_FEATURES in bsd.compiler.mk and add the flag only if supported. > function correctly. > supports stack overflow protection using the Stack Smashing Protector > .Pq SSP > compiler feature, > -and stack clash protection. > +and stack clash protection (if supported by the compiler for the given > architecture). To make it explicitly clear that the "if supported" applies only to stack clash protection, maybe make it a separate sentence. ... SSP compiler feature. Stack clash protection is also enabled, if supported by the compiler for the given architecture. Looks good to me either way.