linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] gcc-plugins: Add the initify gcc plugin

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: <58546E96.16770.2C23F1B4@pageexec.freemail.hu>
Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:45:42 +0100
From:   "PaX Team" <pageexec@...email.hu>
To:     kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, spender@...ecurity.net,
        mmarek@...e.com, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, minipli@...linux.so,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com,
        linux@...musvillemoes.dk, david.brown@...aro.org,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jlayton@...chiereds.net,
        sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] gcc-plugins: Add the initify gcc plugin

On 16 Dec 2016 at 14:06, Kees Cook wrote:

> diff --git a/scripts/gcc-plugins/gcc-common.h b/scripts/gcc-plugins/gcc-common.h
> index 950fd2e64bb7..369bfb471e58 100644
> --- a/scripts/gcc-plugins/gcc-common.h
> +++ b/scripts/gcc-plugins/gcc-common.h
> @@ -287,6 +287,26 @@ static inline struct cgraph_node *cgraph_next_function_with_gimple_body(struct c
>   return NULL;
>  }
> 
> +static inline bool cgraph_for_node_and_aliases(cgraph_node_ptr node,
> +				bool (*callback)(cgraph_node_ptr, void *),
> +				void *data, bool include_overwritable)
> +{
> +	cgraph_node_ptr alias;
> +
> +	if (callback(node, data))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	for (alias = node->same_body; alias; alias = alias->next) {
> +		if (include_overwritable ||
> +			cgraph_function_body_availability(alias) > AVAIL_OVERWRITABLE)
> +			if (cgraph_for_node_and_aliases(alias, callback, data,
> +							include_overwritable))
> +				return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>  #define FOR_EACH_FUNCTION_WITH_GIMPLE_BODY(node) \
>   for ((node) = cgraph_first_function_with_gimple_body(); (node); \
>    (node) = cgraph_next_function_with_gimple_body(node))

this hunk above and...

> @@ -674,6 +707,14 @@ static inline cgraph_node_ptr cgraph_alias_target(cgraph_node_ptr node)
>   return node->get_alias_target();
>  }
> 
> +static inline bool cgraph_for_node_and_aliases(cgraph_node_ptr node,
> +				bool (*callback)(cgraph_node_ptr, void *),
> +				void *data, bool include_overwritable)
> +{
> +	return node->call_for_symbol_thunks_and_aliases(callback, data,
> +							include_overwritable);
> +}
> +
>  static inline struct cgraph_node_hook_list *cgraph_add_function_insertion_hook(cgraph_node_hook hook, void *data)
>  {
>   return symtab->add_cgraph_insertion_hook(hook, data);

...this one aren't needed by any plugins upstream so maybe introduce them when
the needed arises? and the whole patch against gcc-common.h would also conflict
with the version i maintain and that you said you'd sync to so there's a decision
to be made regarding how this will is to be maintained...