linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] retpoline/module: Taint kernel for missing retpoline in module

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 13 Jan 2018 14:38:51 +0000
From:   "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "dwmw@...zon.co.uk" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "jeyu@...nel.org" <jeyu@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] retpoline/module: Taint kernel for missing retpoline in
 module

> > When the a module hasn't been compiled with a retpoline
> > aware compiler, print a warning and set a taint flag.
> 
> Isn't that caught by the "build with a different compiler/version" check
> that we have?  Or used to have?  If not, can't we just make it into that
> type of check to catch this type of problem no matter what type of
> feature/option it is trying to catch?


making retpoline part of the modversion hash thingy could make sense.

but I kinda feel this is a bit overkill; it's not a function issue if you get this wrong, and if you run an ancient or weird out of tree module there's a real chance you have
other security fun as well ;-)