linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 163/193] kasan: rework Kconfig settings

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: <1520346571.23626.5.camel@codethink.co.uk>
Date:   Tue, 06 Mar 2018 14:29:31 +0000
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 163/193] kasan: rework Kconfig settings

On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 19:26 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> ------------------
> 
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> commit e7c52b84fb18f08ce49b6067ae6285aca79084a8 upstream.
[...]
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ config ENABLE_MUST_CHECK
>  config FRAME_WARN
>  	int "Warn for stack frames larger than (needs gcc 4.4)"
>  	range 0 8192
> -	default 0 if KASAN
> +	default 2048 if GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY
>  	default 1024 if !64BIT
>  	default 2048 if 64BIT
>  	help

This doesn't make sense for 4.4.  There is no GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY
in 4.4, and this line wasn't added by the upstream commit.

I think all that was really needed in the backport was to delete the
'default 0', right?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.