linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Kbuild updates for 4.18 (2nd round)

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: <CA+55aFy2KEzTiF=0nG8_RFoPpycaqc=n-hf-mQSbKotMzYJG-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:03:16 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        masahiroy@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kbuild updates for 4.18 (2nd round)

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:55 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:47 AM Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull more Kbuild updates.
>
> Pulled. However, I notice a few oddities.

Oh, and one actual bug: "make oldconfig" doesn't work right.

I used to have

  CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
  # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE is not set
  # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR is not set
  # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG is not set
  CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO=y

which means that since my compiler supports -fstack-protector-strong,
I should get CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG.

But that's not at all what I get. I get

  CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
  CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y
  CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
  # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG is not set
  CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y

ie CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG basically went away.

The reason for that is that it takes the *old* value of
CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG, which was "no", but that's wrong.

The meaning of the config option has changed, but it took the default
from the old meaning, and decided that I shouldn't get strong stack
protection any more.

This is a pretty dangerous silent change.

               Linus