[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0575AF4FD06DD142AD198903C74E1CC87A5C9013@FMSMSX151.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 14:38:51 +0000
From: "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"dwmw@...zon.co.uk" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"jeyu@...nel.org" <jeyu@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] retpoline/module: Taint kernel for missing retpoline in
module
> > When the a module hasn't been compiled with a retpoline
> > aware compiler, print a warning and set a taint flag.
>
> Isn't that caught by the "build with a different compiler/version" check
> that we have? Or used to have? If not, can't we just make it into that
> type of check to catch this type of problem no matter what type of
> feature/option it is trying to catch?
making retpoline part of the modversion hash thingy could make sense.
but I kinda feel this is a bit overkill; it's not a function issue if you get this wrong, and if you run an ancient or weird out of tree module there's a real chance you have
other security fun as well ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists