Bug#709415: lintian: false positive for hardening-no-fortify-functions
Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> writes:
> In the tag description or the tag "extra"? For the former, the problem
> might be that the list is (or could be) architecture dependent. For the
> latter, it would need some changes to hardening-info{,-helper} +
> c/binaries. But also some consideration to handle 5+ unprotected
> functions. Example even the following is getting rather lengthy
> ... hardening-no-fortity-functions path/to/file func1, func2, func3, ...
I was thinking the tag extra, just to list the unprotected functions, but
it was more a matter of curiosity than anything I think is horribly
important.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: