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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 17:22:42 -0600 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, George Burgess <gbiv@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kbuild: disable FORTIFY_SOURCE on clang-10 On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:22 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:37:38PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:25 PM Nathan Chancellor > > > <natechancellor@...il.com> wrote: > > > > I believe these issues are one in the same. I did a reverse bisect with > > > > Arnd's test case and converged on George's first patch: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2dd17ff08165e6118e70f00e22b2c36d2d4e0a9a > > > > > > > > I think that in lieu of this patch, we should have that patch and its > > > > follow-up fix merged into 10.0.1. > > > > > > If this is fixed in 10.0.1, do we even need to patch the kernel at > > > all? Or can we just leave it be, considering most organizations using > > > clang know what they're getting into? I'd personally prefer the > > > latter, so that we don't clutter things. > > > > I agree: I'd rather this was fixed in 10.0.1 (but if we do want a > > kernel-side work-around for 10.0.0, I would suggest doing the version > > check in the Kconfig for FORTIFY_SOURCE instead of in the Makefile, > > as that's where these things are supposed to live these days). > > Indeed this belongs in the Makefile. I can send a patch adjusting er, Kconfig, is what I meant to type.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists