similar to: CLANG and -fstack-protector

The version of sshd in FreeBSD 8.4 is not backward compatible with older version from 8.3. OpenSSH_5.4p1 (on FreeBSD 8.3) OpenSSH_6.1p1 (on FreeBSD 8.4) # sshd -t /etc/ssh/sshd_config line 19: Missing argument. On line 19, there is: VersionAddendum It was OK in older versions. It will remove any default text appended to SSH protocol banner (for example 'FreeBSD-20120901'). On

Hello, My 9-STABLE buildworld broke in a very inexplicable way, I was getting an error on /usr/src/include/osreldate.h that I couldn't figure out until I started looking at the sys/conf/newvers.sh and what it does. It turned out that the thing that broke my buildworld was having .git directory at the root directory of the system because I recently started using GIT to track the configuration

When i use zpool labelclear, it wipes the whole disk including gpt data. So the whole disk is empty and i need to create the gpt partitions again. Is this supposed to work like this? The man page suggests that it only wipes the ZFS metadata. zpool labelclear [-f] device Removes ZFS label information from the specified device. The device must not be part of an active pool

hi all. it was happened that i have no upgrade my system long time. Before that i used for upgrading "classic" way. make buildworld make buildkernel make installkernel mergemaster make installworld But in current moment as i can see the upgrading is totally changed. As i understand commands sequence is next: #freebsd-update fetch #freebsd-update install #freebsd-update upgrade -r

http://www.crn.com.au/story.aspx?CIID=76033&eid=4&edate=20070320 The company developed Response Point to work alongside traditional phone systems or voice-over-IP systems. Continuing its recent foray into the market for digital communications products, Microsoft on Monday introduced its first packaged digital phone system for small business. Anyone know anything about it?

yo, ive been using the fstack protector for a while now and it worked fine until i was gonna compile 4.8p3 then i got these errors, sio.o(.text+0x18b7): undefined reference to `__guard' sio.o(.text+0x1da9): undefined reference to `__guard' sio.o(.text+0x1db9): undefined reference to `__stack_smash_handler' vga_isa.o: In function `isavga_probe': vga_isa.o(.text+0x10): undefined

On 2 Oct 2012, at 03:26, Magee, Josh wrote: > 1) An address of a local variable is taken in such a way as to expose the > address of a stack location. > - Example: the address of a local on the RHS of an assignment, the > address of a local passed into function. This sounds like something that would be triggered for any function containing a block, even if the

Hi all. For a while, gcc has supported a stack protection mechanism (-fstack-protector and friends, available in gcc 4.1.2 and up). Can anyone think of a good reason not to enable it if the compiler supports it? A quick test here shows minimal difference in runtime over a full regress pass (~10sec over 8.5 minutes, and since the machine is not entirely idle that could be experimental error).

David Chisnall wrote: >On 2 Oct 2012, at 03:26, Magee, Josh wrote: > >> 1) An address of a local variable is taken in such a way as to expose the >> address of a stack location. >> - Example: the address of a local on the RHS of an assignment, the >> address of a local passed into function. > > It also sounds like it would be triggered for a

I tried building dovecot using : CPPFLAGS="-fstack-protector" LDFLAGS="-lssp" ./configure That would result in a proper build, yet the binary would complain once being run: dlopen(/usr/local/lib/dovecot/imap/lib10_quota_plugin.so) failed: /usr/local/lib/dovecot/imap/lib10_quota_plugin.so: undefined symbol: __stack_chk_fail_local Error: imap dump-capability process returned

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:32 PM Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 07:57:43PM +0000, Tim Shen via llvm-dev wrote: > > A cleaner solution could be adding an IR intrinsic llvm.get_tcb_address() > > and hard code the offset of stack_guard member, since they aren't > supposed > > to change. > > It

Guys, I've heard about some absurd RAM requirements for 9.1, has anybody tested it? e.g. http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=36314 -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/9-1-minimal-ram-requirements-tp5771583.html Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:00 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, for most of the architectures listed there it's not particularly > useful as they support direct access to TLS variables (as Joerg says > later). That grep isn't representative of how the data is actually > accessed. If the current address space way of specifying isn't doable on

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> > To: "Tim Shen" <timshen at google.com>, llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org, "Hal > Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Kit Barton" <kbarton at ca.ibm.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 6:59:50 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [PPC] Linker fails on

When -fstack-protector is turned on, linker fails to find the symbol "__stack_chk_guard" because at least for powerpc64le, glibc doesn't provide this symbol. Instead, they put the stack guard into TCB. x86 fixed this issue by injecting a special address space (which is later translated to TCB register access) and hard code the offset of stack_guard, but I don't see a easy way to

Hi, List, In checking the page fault problem when using pv-grub to start domU in opensuse12.3[1], found that the problem is caused by ''-fstack-protector'' flag which is introduced in rpm build: export EXTRA_CFLAGS_XEN_TOOLS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" export EXTRA_CFLAGS_QEMU_TRADITIONAL="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" export EXTRA_CFLAGS_QEMU_XEN="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" with

hi is there any way to build 4.8 release with this fstack protection? or atleast some ports is there any good info on this? the only page i found was that ibm page but it seemed outdated. //martin

I'll come up with a address-space-based proof of concept. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 17:05 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:04 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From: *"Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> >> *To: *"Tim

On 10/1/12 9:26 PM, Magee, Josh wrote: > Hello, > > I plan to implement "Stack Smashing Protection - Strong" support in LLVM. > Below is a description of this feature and an overview of the implementation > plan. I have divided up the implementation into stages that can be delivered > incrementally. > > I'm looking for any feedback (suggestions, requests,

I found a bit weird to use address space for this, since the offset of getting stack_guard in TCB is, unfortunately, negative: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/config/rs6000/linux64.h#L610 In my understanding an address space is referring to a segment register (-on powerpc 32bit; or SLB entry on powerpc 64bit?) with a non-negative offset value, so that it's actually accessing