linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: dont specify STACKPROTECTOR in defconfigs

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: <32093d53-44fe-1bde-261b-daf7bab500d9@imgtec.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:41:01 +0100
From:	James Hartley <james.hartley@...tec.com>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@...tec.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: dont specify STACKPROTECTOR in defconfigs

Hi Paul,


On 03/08/16 20:03, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> Only one defconfig has a STACKPROTECTOR value.  And it asks for
> the strong variant, which isn't supported by older toolchains.
>
> Due to the nature of MIPS having more platform specific code than say
> x86, the allyesconfig and allmodconfig aren't as effective for build
> coverage.  So, in addition, I like to use a trivial script to walk all
> the defconfigs and build each one.
>
> However I will get false positives on unsupported stackprotector values
> with an older toolchain like gcc-4.6.3.  As in this instance I am just
> using the compiler as a glorified syntax checker on a machine where I
> build a bunch of other arch for the same reason, there is no real
> motivation to get a newer toolchain for improved optimization etc.
>
> Since there is only one of them, and there is nothing about these
> settings that are board/platform specific, I propose we just eliminate
> the existing instance and take the default.
Are you sure that this is not platform specific - my understanding is
that this can be used to give a small security enhancement, which could
be platform rather than arch specific.  Either way, I don't believe that
pistachio requires this option, so:

Acked-by: James Hartley <james.hartley@...tec.com>

James.

>
> Cc: James Hartley <james.hartley@...tec.com>
> Cc: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@...tec.com>
> Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
> Cc: linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
> ---
>  arch/mips/configs/pistachio_defconfig | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/mips/configs/pistachio_defconfig b/arch/mips/configs/pistachio_defconfig
> index 8b7429127a1d..698631327c8c 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/configs/pistachio_defconfig
> +++ b/arch/mips/configs/pistachio_defconfig
> @@ -29,7 +29,6 @@ CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
>  CONFIG_EMBEDDED=y
>  # CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK is not set
>  CONFIG_PROFILING=y
> -CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y
>  CONFIG_MODULES=y
>  CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD=y
>  CONFIG_MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD=y