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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:03:24 +0800 From: Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com> To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, frederic@...nel.org, yifeifz2@...inois.edu, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, andreyknvl@...il.com, Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC/RFT] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support On 11/2/21 5:51 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 8:58 AM Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote: >> >> I tried to submit a patch[1] to add compiler's SCS support on gcc-11.1.0. > > This would go into GCC 12, right? > Oh, yes, gcc-11.1.0 is the version I used to test this patch. >> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583062.html > > Nit: you can use the `Link: ` tag for this. > Thanks, Miguel :) >> # Supported by clang >= 7.0 > > We should add a comment here saying the minimum version too, e.g. GCC >> = 12 (assuming it will be merged) > Ok, I will add a comment in the next version, if this patch will be merged. >> config CC_HAVE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK >> - def_bool $(cc-option, -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack -ffixed-x18) >> + def_bool CC_IS_CLANG || $(cc-option, -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack -ffixed-x18) > > This is changing the default for Clang (which looks fine due to our > minimum Clang version), but if the test for GCC works the same way, > why not just keep the line as it was since it covers both? > That sounds reasonable, keep this line unchanged is fine. >> +#if __has_attribute(__no_sanitize_shadow_call_stack__) >> +#define __noscs __attribute__((no_sanitize_shadow_call_stack)) >> +#else >> +#define __noscs >> +#endif > > No need for the `else` branch here, it is done in `compiler_types.h` > (to be consistent with Clang). > Oh, I see, thanks. > Also, I hope one day GCC and Clang doing the same for these > sanitize-related bits... > > Cheers, > Miguel >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists