Oliver Smith-Denny

@lgao4 here is the RFC link: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/rfc_stack_cookie_pr/107689957. I asked for people to review on the PR. For the other maintainers, this is a BaseTools change that just removes the old...

> > @lgao4 here is the RFC link: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/rfc_stack_cookie_pr/107689957. I asked for people to review on the PR. > > For the other maintainers, this is a BaseTools change that...

@ardbiesheuvel @leiflindholm @samimujawar @kraxel @jyao1 can you please review from the OvmfPkg/ArmVirtPkg side? @lgao4 @bcran @BobCF @YuweiChen1110 can you review from the BaseTools side? @lgao4 @mdkinney @LiuZhiguang001 can you review...

> I don't often say this but I wonder if this would be easier to maintain if we moved a little more code into assembler. My thinking is having to...

@mdkinney @ajfish, here is my proposal: it seems we are aligned on getting stack cookie support in, but we don't like the current dynamic implementation. I would like to get...

> > @mdkinney @ajfish, here is my proposal: it seems we are aligned on getting stack cookie support in, but we don't like the current dynamic implementation. I would like...

@mdkinney @ajfish I have resolved all the open comments (most of them by resolving and deferring the conversation to the dynamic implementation PR) and dropped the dynamic library instance. Can...

I am fixing the pipeline failures. For gcc host applications, we don’t link against a c runtime that provides the definitions, so we have to link against ours.

@mdkinney I have made your requested changes, can you please re-review? @niruiyu gentle ping to please review.

@mdkinney I have made the requested changes, can you please re-review?