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  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:	Mon, 13 Jun 2016 02:18:31 +0200
From:	Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
	Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: disable under COMPILE_TEST

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 15:25:39 -0700
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> I don't like this because it means if someone specifically selects
> some plugins in their .config, and the headers are missing, the kernel
> will successfully compile. For many plugins, this results in a kernel
> that lacks the requested security features, and that I really do not
> want to have happening. I'm okay leaving these disabled for compile
> tests for now. We can revisit this once more distros have plugins
> enabled by default.

You are right. Your patch is safer.

-- 
Emese

Powered by blists - more mailing lists