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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20210126154651.itfrnhwfistia3ss@treble> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:46:51 -0600 From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] gcc-plugins: Handle GCC version mismatch for OOT modules On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:51:55AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > User space mixes compiler versions all the time. The C ABI is stable. > > > > What specifically is the harder issue you're referring to? > > I don't think the C ABI captures nearly enough. Imagine trying to mix a > compiler with and without asm-goto support (ok, we fail to build without > by now, but just imagine). > > No C ABI violated, but having that GCC extention vs not having it > radically changes the kernel ABI. > > I think I'm with Greg here, just don't do it. Ok, thank you for an actual example. asm goto is a good one. But it's not a cut-and-dry issue. Otherwise how could modversions possibly work? So yes, we should enforce GCC versions, but I still haven't seen a reason it should be more than just "same compiler and *major* version". -- Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists