[cgl_discussion] Re: Buffer overflow

Makan Pourzandi (LMC) Makan.Pourzandi at ericsson.ca
Mon Apr 28 08:16:25 PDT 2003

Hi all, 

Sorry, I am late in the discussion. 

Greg thank you for the information regarding openwall. I'll add the references for ProPolice and StackGuard to the doc, and remove the reference for openwall. 

Regarding specifying a specific version of gcc, IMO, it would be restraining the distros. All requirements have been defined with in mind that distros must be free to choose among different existing solutions, including creating/developing their own solution. Personally, I'll go with something more general like: "Support for buffer overflows protection mechanisms" and put these protections as references, main reason for this is that we want to have the functionality: being able to protect the system against the buffer overflows and let the distros to choose among existing solutions: ProPolice,... The references which we give for each requirement are just to show the feasibility and giving a hint on possible solutions. any comments? 

I hope that it clarified thing, 

Best regards,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mika Kukkonen [mailto:mika at osdl.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 12:25 PM
> To: Greg KH
> Cc: cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org; Makan Pourzandi (LMC); Campadello
> Stefano
> Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Re: Buffer overflow
> On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 08:57, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:22:05AM -0700, Mika Kukkonen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 17:23, Greg KH wrote:
> > > (...)
> > > > And there's things like the StackGuard or ProPolice gcc 
> patches that
> > > > might be better to point people at.  However, that's 
> not a kernel
> > > > patch/feature, so would not fall under the CGL spec :)
> (...)
> > Ok then, why not specify a specific version of gcc (like the above
> > mentioned versions) if you all really want to worry about 
> something like
> > this?
> AFAIK some distros already ship with their own modified 
> version of gcc same
> way as they ship with their own modified version of Linux 
> kernel, and from
> CGL viewpoint this is OK (we do aim to get 99% of our 
> features into mainline
> kernel/gcc, but sometimes that takes a loooong time, or never 
> because of
> non-technical issues).
> So if our security people feel like adding a generic requirement like
> "CGL C-complier should provide the option to compile applications with
> StackGuard/ProPolice", I do not have an issue with it.
> But I do think this kind of additional checking (which always 
> comes with
> price tag on performance) should be optional, with the actual 
> decision of
> whether to use it or not left to the distros and their 
> customers. Hence
> the word "optional" in my example above.
> Makan/Stefano, any thoughts?
> --MiKu

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list