linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: declare __{start,end}_builtin

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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFzGXmDX5hBcUoBKuUtja0XXZcOGVvmnwK5LgLnSO6oqKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:17:00 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: declare __{start,end}_builtin_fw as pointers

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
>
> This is the best I could come up with: assuming gcc is not allowed to
> reason about what's inside the asm(), this is the only way I could
> think of to lose the array information without incurring unnecessary
> overheads. It should also be relatively safe as there is no way to
> accidentally use the underlying arrays without explicitly declaring
> them.

Ugh. I worry about the other places where we do things like this,
depending on the linker just assigning the addresses and us being able
to compare them.

If there is a compiler option to disable this optimization, I would
almost prefer that.. Because we really do have a whole slew of these
things.

                 Linus