[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180113153757.GB25956@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 16:37:57 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"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
On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 02:38:51PM +0000, Van De Ven, Arjan wrote:
> > > 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 ;-)
Sure, but take pity on the crazy distro developers who have to support
crap like this. They really want to know if a module is built
differently from the kernel, to force the user to know they are on their
own.
modversion seems like a trivial thing to mix this into, and solves the
distro issue at the same time.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists