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, 2 Feb 2022 19:18:04 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, George Burgess IV <gbiv@...gle.com>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v5] fortify: Add Clang support On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:27:11PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:30 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > > > +#define BOS const __pass_object_size(1) > > +#define BOS0 const __pass_object_size(0) > > A dumb bikeshed, but would you mind naming these BOS1 and BOS0, and > perhaps consider adding a comment or pointer or link to something that > describes why we use the two different modes? I recognize that the > code already uses the two different modes already without comments, > but this might be a nice place to point folks like myself to so that > in a month or so when I forget what the difference is between modes > (again), we have a shorter trail of breadcrumbs. Sure, I can do that. My expectation was to entirely eliminate mode 0 usage in the future. Though now that things are so close, I'll just do some builds with the last few users switched over. But maybe memcmp() was a pain? I'll go check... -- Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists