linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] GCC release 8 support for gcc-plugins

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLtb46yFK1TRE3WBPp6grQQGbCbqGCTYJJ7dok3Kws8pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:26:09 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] GCC release 8 support for gcc-plugins

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:56 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 12:34:38PM -0500, valdis.kletnieks@...edu wrote:
>> For reasons totally beyond my understanding, gcc 8 changed the
>> order of two structure member, which leads to an error:
>
> I'm a little late on this, but isn't the whole point of C99 initializers
> that field order should not matter at all?

For C99, this is true. The plugins are built differently and follow
C++ conventions, which, for reasons I cannot understand, are ordered.
:( Regardless, the fix actually results in fewer lines of code, so
this is fine.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security