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:   Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:22:09 -0800
From:   Nick Desaulniers <>
To:     Kees Cook <>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        George Burgess IV <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v5] fortify: Add Clang support

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:30 PM Kees Cook <> wrote:
> --- a/security/Kconfig
> +++ b/security/Kconfig
> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ config FORTIFY_SOURCE
>         depends on ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE
>         #
>         #
> -       depends on !CC_IS_CLANG
> +       depends on !CC_IS_CLANG || CLANG_VERSION >= 130000

Are these comments still relevant, and is the clang version still correct?

Miguel notes that diagnose_as only exists in clang-14+.  If this
series relies on diagnose_as, then should this version check be for
clang-14+ rather than clang-13+? is still open, but doesn't
signify why there's a version check. It makes sense if there's no
version check, but I'm not sure it's still relevant to this Kconfig
option after your series. was fixed in clang-13, but
it was also backported to the clang 12.0.1 release.  Is it still
relevant if we're gated on diagnose_as from clang-14?

Perhaps a single comment, about the diagnose_as attribute or a link to or
whatever, and updating the version check to be against clang-14 would
be more precise?
~Nick Desaulniers

Powered by blists - more mailing lists