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]

Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:02:28 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>
Cc:     "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, minipli@...linux.so,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] gcc-plugins: Add the initify gcc plugin

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:45 PM, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu> wrote:
> 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?

Hrm, sure. I was just going off of Emese's v3. (And this is partially
an artifact of basing off of v4.9-rc2... I'll refresh it to v4.10-rc2
once it's out.)

> 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...

What's easiest for you? I'm okay to carry "unused by upstream yet"
functions and macros in gcc-common, though I don't like carrying lots
of commented out stuff. :P

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Nexus Security