linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: increase stack size for KASAN

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]

Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:22:17 -0500
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: increase stack size for KASAN_EXTRA

On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 23:12 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:59 PM Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 22:56 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:52 PM Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 22:43 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:18 PM Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I am not too keen to do the version-check considering some LTS versions
> > > > could
> > > > just back-port those patches and the render the version-check
> > > > incorrectly.
> > > 
> > > I'm not following what the problem is. Do you mean distro versions gcc
> > > with the compiler bugfix, or LTS kernel versions?
> > > 
> > 
> > I mean distro versions of GCC where the version is still 8 but keep back-
> > porting
> > tons of patches.
> 
> Ok, but in that case, checking the version would still be no worse
> than your current patch, the only difference is that for users of a
> fixed older gcc, the kernel would use more stack than it needs.
> 

I am thinking about something it is probably best just waiting for those major
distors to complete upgrading to GCC9 or back-porting those stack reduction
patches first. Then, it is good time to tie up loose ends for those default
stack sizes in all combinations.