Compiler Hardening Guide: `-Wl,-z,noexecheap` command-line option about wg-best-practices-os-developers HOT 3 CLOSED

As an aside, gold is largely unmaintained, so we should probably target only lld or ld.bfd. noexecheap however looks like a Gentoo extension; it's not present in any of the upstream toolchains. I'll work on some text to fix this.

from wg-best-practices-os-developers.

PR #154 addresses the specific concern with -Wl,-z,noexecheap.

I agree that we should aim to be precise with the attributing the different options to specific compiler / linker versions.
Currently we are still missing version information for the -rpath options under the discouraged compiler options.
I assigned myself a separate issue to fix this (#164) but in general, should we also make distinction between GNU ld, ld.bfd and LLVM lld when attributing linker options or is is sufficient to separate between Binutils version and LLVM version?

from wg-best-practices-os-developers.

As an aside, gold is largely unmaintained, so we should probably target only lld or ld.bfd. noexecheap however looks like a Gentoo extension; it's not present in any of the upstream toolchains. I'll work on some text to fix this.

Quite an old one too, I think. We dropped that a long time ago.

from wg-best-practices-os-developers.