RFR: JDK-8129395 Configure should verify that -fstack-protector is valid - take 2
erik.joelsson at oracle.com
Fri Feb 5 10:58:45 UTC 2016
Change looks good.
On 2016-02-05 11:48, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> A previous fix to check if -fstack-protector is accepted by gcc
> failed, since when testing the option, gcc emitted a warning and not
> an error.
> The one thing I'm thinking here about is if the ssp-buffer-size option
> should be more tightly coupled with the -fstack-protector flag. It
> does not harm to have it without the -f flag, but it seems a bit
> funny. Opinions?
> I also noted that this flag is added to CFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS. This
> means that it only gets activated if we generate debug symbols. For
> Oracle builds we always do so it doesn't really matter, but I'd say
> that it's technically incorrect. I'd rather not fix that now, though,
> but save it for the upcoming and long overdue cleanup of flags handling.
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129395
> Patch inline:
> diff --git a/common/autoconf/flags.m4 b/common/autoconf/flags.m4
> --- a/common/autoconf/flags.m4
> +++ b/common/autoconf/flags.m4
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> -# Copyright (c) 2011, 2015, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights
> +# Copyright (c) 2011, 2016, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights
> # DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
> # This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> @@ -426,7 +426,7 @@
> # Add runtime stack smashing and undefined behavior checks.
> # Not all versions of gcc support -fstack-protector
> - FLAGS_COMPILER_CHECK_ARGUMENTS(ARGUMENT:
> [$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG], IF_FALSE: [STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG=""])
> + FLAGS_COMPILER_CHECK_ARGUMENTS(ARGUMENT:
> [$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG -Werror], IF_FALSE: [STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG=""])
> CFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG --param
> CXXFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG --param
More information about the build-dev