security_flags: use -fstack-protector-strong

This is a better version of -fstack-protector-all with reduced stack usage and
better performance yet giving same amount of coverage.  It's available in gcc
4.9 onwards.

https://outflux.net/blog/archives/2014/01/27/fstack-protector-strong/ has more
details.

(From OE-Core rev: 4ca946c029f04ba3991ed0f1f65355a7a7840ff4)

Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc
index 72d31ba67b..5e0ef634bf 100644
--- a/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/security_flags.inc
@@ -9,14 +9,14 @@
 # -O0 which then results in a compiler warning.
 lcl_maybe_fortify = "${@base_conditional('DEBUG_BUILD','1','','-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2',d)}"
 
-SECURITY_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-all -pie -fpie ${lcl_maybe_fortify}"
-SECURITY_NO_PIE_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-all ${lcl_maybe_fortify}"
+SECURITY_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong -pie -fpie ${lcl_maybe_fortify}"
+SECURITY_NO_PIE_CFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong ${lcl_maybe_fortify}"
 
-SECURITY_LDFLAGS ?= "-Wl,-z,relro,-z,now"
-SECURITY_X_LDFLAGS ?= "-Wl,-z,relro"
+SECURITY_LDFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong -Wl,-z,relro,-z,now"
+SECURITY_X_LDFLAGS ?= "-fstack-protector-strong -Wl,-z,relro"
 
 # powerpc does not get on with pie for reasons not looked into as yet
-SECURITY_CFLAGS_powerpc = "-fstack-protector-all ${lcl_maybe_fortify}"
+SECURITY_CFLAGS_powerpc = "-fstack-protector-strong ${lcl_maybe_fortify}"
 # Deal with ppc specific linker failures when using the cflags
 SECURITY_CFLAGS_pn-dbus_powerpc = ""
 SECURITY_CFLAGS_pn-dbus-ptest_powerpc = ""