linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kasan: don't emit builtin calls when sanitization is off

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: <CAKwvOdmFTREEgzu_meC899EL2mdYfpq9iVgzVQVPo0ORBs=OAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:08:28 -0500
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
        Pirama Arumuga Nainar <pirama@...gle.com>,
        Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@...gle.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Majnemer <majnemer@...gle.com>,
        Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@...gle.com>,
        Michael Kuperstein <mkuper@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kasan: don't emit builtin calls when sanitization is off

sorry, for new people I just cc'ed: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10175831/

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> Hmm... I had mentioned this patch to some coworkers who have much more
> knowledge about LLVM than me.  They had concern that LLVM needs memset
> to be defined, and that there were discussions on the llvm mailing
> list about this.
>
> I'm digging through trying to find anything relevant, maybe this one
> about memcpy: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-May/050108.html
>
> I wonder if -ffreestanding is more appropriate?



-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers