linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] [RFC/RFT] AARCH64: Add gcc Shadow Call Stack support

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

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

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

Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 19:51:48 +0100
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        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 Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:42 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Do we want to move this to include/linux/compiler_attributes.h?
> Respecifying these repeatedly in each include/linux/compiler-*.h feels
> excessively redundant.

Note that they are spelled differently, which is one of the reasons to
keep them separate (and why I invoked my hopes of Clang and GCC
agreeing).

I typically mention that we could start breaking this "rule" and it
would be also reasonable; but on the other hand, having it this way
makes the distinction clear and also gives an incentive for compilers
to agree ;)

For reference, the file explains this on the top:

```
* Any other "attributes" (i.e. those that depend on a configuration option,
* on a compiler, on an architecture, on plugins, on other attributes...)
* should be defined elsewhere (e.g. compiler_types.h or compiler-*.h).
* The intention is to keep this file as simple as possible, as well as
* compiler- and version-agnostic (e.g. avoiding GCC_VERSION checks).
```

Cheers,
Miguel