linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 4/4 v5] fortify: Add Clang 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 linux-cve-announce 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 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