[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdkrS-P_AS1azSCP-DVq_h8Dhb8YiLTfH=9zzEJQphZTcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 16:36:49 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
George Burgess <gbiv@...gle.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kbuild: disable FORTIFY_SOURCE on clang-10
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:22 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > (Though as was mentioned, it's likely that FORTIFY_SOURCE isn't working
> > _at all_ under Clang, so I may still send a patch to depend on !clang
> > just to avoid surprises until it's fixed, but I haven't had time to
> > chase down a solution yet.)
Not good. If it's completely broken, turn it off, and we'll prioritize fixing.
> That might be the most coherent thing to do, at least so that people
> don't get some false sense of mitigation.
Do we have a better test for "this is working as intended" or not
other than excessive stack usage, since that doesn't repro for
clang-9?
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists