linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip 1/2] Kconfig: Bump required compiler version of KASAN and UBSAN

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: <CAKwvOd=TZsioqoUU+xZSUMooqux6Meu54PBCxP2mbtRb3Yp5pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:59:44 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 1/2] Kconfig: Bump required compiler version of KASAN
 and UBSAN

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 12:38 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 09:25:47PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > Currently x86 only, but I know other arch maintainers are planning to
> > > have a hard look at their code based on our findings.
> >
> > I've already spotted a bunch of 'noinstr' outside arch/x86 e.g. in
> > kernel/{locking,rcu}, and a bunch of these functions use atomic_*, all
> > of which are __always_inline. The noinstr uses outside arch/x86 would
> > break builds on all architecture with GCC <= 7 when using sanitizers.
> > At least that's what led me to conclude we need this for all
> > architectures.
>
> True; but !x86 could, probably, get away with not fully respecting
> noinstr at this time. But that'd make a mess of things again, so my
> preference is as you did, unilaterally raise the min version for *SAN.

Fair, thought I'd ask.  (I prefer people use newer
hopefully-less-buggier-but-maybe-not-really-suprise-they're-actually-worse
tools anyways)

Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
---
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers