Re: patch kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch added to 2.6.24-stable tree

Re: patch kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch added to 2.6.24-stable tree

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:58PM -0800, gregkh@suse.de wrote:
 > 
 > This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
 > 
 >      Subject: kbuild: allow -fstack-protector to take effect
 > 
 > to the 2.6.24-stable tree.  Its filename is
 > 
 >      kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch
 > 
 > A git repo of this tree can be found at 
 >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

Is this wise given this thread..  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/101    ?

At least until the problem is understood, not enabling this seems like
a better option for -stable

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

Re: [stable] patch kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch added to 2.6.24-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:06:04PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:58PM -0800, gregkh@suse.de wrote:
>  > 
>  > This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
>  > 
>  >      Subject: kbuild: allow -fstack-protector to take effect
>  > 
>  > to the 2.6.24-stable tree.  Its filename is
>  > 
>  >      kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch
>  > 
>  > A git repo of this tree can be found at 
>  >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> 
> Is this wise given this thread..  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/101    ?
> 
> At least until the problem is understood, not enabling this seems like
> a better option for -stable

I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
Makefile change.

Or am I wrong here?  If so, I'll gladly drop it.  Arjan?  Sam?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [stable] patch kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch added to 2.6.24-stable tree

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:18:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
 > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:06:04PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:58PM -0800, gregkh@suse.de wrote:
 > >  > 
 > >  > This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
 > >  > 
 > >  >      Subject: kbuild: allow -fstack-protector to take effect
 > >  > 
 > >  > to the 2.6.24-stable tree.  Its filename is
 > >  > 
 > >  >      kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch
 > >  > 
 > >  > A git repo of this tree can be found at 
 > >  >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
 > > 
 > > Is this wise given this thread..  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/101    ?
 > > 
 > > At least until the problem is understood, not enabling this seems like
 > > a better option for -stable
 > 
 > I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
 > Makefile change.

At the least we'll likely want to also pick up the other stack protector fixes
that went into .25rc if we turn it on in .24
 
	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

Re: [stable] patch kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch added to 2.6.24-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:34:07PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:18:08PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>  > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:06:04PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>  > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:58PM -0800, gregkh@suse.de wrote:
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >      Subject: kbuild: allow -fstack-protector to take effect
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > to the 2.6.24-stable tree.  Its filename is
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >      kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > A git repo of this tree can be found at 
>  > >  >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
>  > > 
>  > > Is this wise given this thread..  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/101    ?
>  > > 
>  > > At least until the problem is understood, not enabling this seems like
>  > > a better option for -stable
>  > 
>  > I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
>  > Makefile change.
> 
> At the least we'll likely want to also pick up the other stack protector fixes
> that went into .25rc if we turn it on in .24

Hm, that sounds like a new feature :)

I thought the makefile change was just a bugfix in the broken makefile.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [stable] patch kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch added to 2.6.24-stable tree

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:42:16PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

 > >  > I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
 > >  > Makefile change.
 > > 
 > > At the least we'll likely want to also pick up the other stack protector fixes
 > > that went into .25rc if we turn it on in .24
 > 
 > Hm, that sounds like a new feature :)
 > 
 > I thought the makefile change was just a bugfix in the broken makefile.

Well, it is. But it'll cause it to enable something that has been broken for a while.
FWIW, I think having the stack protector reenabled in -stable is a worthwhile goal,
but only once it's stabilised for a while in the development tree.

My fear by just reenabling this for -stable is that when distros push out updates
based on the latest -stable, we'll see more systems like James' problematic system.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

Re: [stable] patch kbuild-allow-fstack-protector-to-take-effect.patch added to 2.6.24-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:59:14PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:42:16PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
>  > >  > I thought that thread was for the much larger patches, not just this
>  > >  > Makefile change.
>  > > 
>  > > At the least we'll likely want to also pick up the other stack protector fixes
>  > > that went into .25rc if we turn it on in .24
>  > 
>  > Hm, that sounds like a new feature :)
>  > 
>  > I thought the makefile change was just a bugfix in the broken makefile.
> 
> Well, it is. But it'll cause it to enable something that has been broken for a while.
> FWIW, I think having the stack protector reenabled in -stable is a worthwhile goal,
> but only once it's stabilised for a while in the development tree.
> 
> My fear by just reenabling this for -stable is that when distros push out updates
> based on the latest -stable, we'll see more systems like James' problematic system.

Fair enough, between this worry, and Arjan saying "no way", I've now
dropped it :)

thanks,

greg k-h