linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins/stackleak: Use noinstr in favor of notrace

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:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:33:19 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins/stackleak: Use noinstr in favor of notrace

I was going to apply your patch, but then I read your note:

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Is it correct to exclude .noinstr.text here? That means any functions called in
> there will have their stack utilization untracked. This doesn't seem right to me,
> though. Shouldn't stackleak_track_stack() just be marked noinstr instead?

... and yes, it seems like stackleak_track_stack() should just be
'noinstr' just like you made stackleak_erase().

So I've dropped the patch to see what happens.

If you decide this is the right patch after all, you can just re-send it.

                 Linus