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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220719133645.GA14089@willie-the-truck> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:36:45 +0100 From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/20] KCFI support On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:04:12AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:34:53PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > > KCFI is a proposed forward-edge control-flow integrity scheme for > > Clang, which is more suitable for kernel use than the existing CFI > > scheme used by CONFIG_CFI_CLANG. KCFI doesn't require LTO, doesn't > > alter function references to point to a jump table, and won't break > > function address equality. The latest LLVM patch is here: > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D119296 > > > > This RFC series replaces the current arm64 CFI implementation with > > KCFI and adds support for x86_64. > > I think the "RFC" prefix for this series can be dropped. :) > > It looks to me like all of Peter's concerns have been addressed. I'd say > let's get the Clang side landed, and once that's done, land this via x86 > -tip? > > Peter and Will does this sound right to you? It touches arm64, so if > -tip isn't okay, I could take it in one of my trees? The arm64 bits look fine to me. Please just check if it conflicts horribly with -next so that we have a chance to figure out a shared branch if necessary. Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists