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, 21 Sep 2022 20:33:52 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <>
To:     Siddhesh Poyarekar <>
Cc:, Miguel Ojeda <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Tom Rix <>,,
        Juergen Gross <>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] fortify: Use __builtin_dynamic_object_size() when

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 07:43:17AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2022-09-20 15:22, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Since the commits starting with c37495d6254c ("slab: add __alloc_size
> > attributes for better bounds checking"), the compilers have runtime
> > allocation size hints available in some places. This was immediately
> > updating to explicitly make use the hints via the associated
> > __builtin_dynamic_object_size() helper. Detect and use the builtin when
> > it is available, increasing the accuracy of the mitigation. When runtime
> > sizes are not available, __builtin_dynamic_object_size() falls back to
> > __builtin_object_size(), leaving the existing bounds checking unchanged.
> I don't know yet what the overhead is for __builtin_dynamic_object_size vs
> __builtin_object_size, were you able to measure it somehow for the kernel?
> If there's a significant tradeoff, it may make sense to provide a user
> override.

So far I've not seen any measurable performance difference, but I just
may not be creative enough yet.

So far, the tunable is building a kernel with or without FORTIFY_SOURCE

Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists