[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210121142342.GD4588@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:23:42 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] objtool: add base support for arm64
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:23:53PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> On 1/21/21 12:08 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > I am not aware of any plans to enable this in GCC, but the Clang
> > implementation is definitely intended for production use (it's a CFI
> > feature for ROP/JOP mitigation)
> I think most people interested in livepatching are using GCC built kernels,
> but I could be mistaken (althought in the long run, both compilers should be
> supported, and yes, I realize the objtool solution currently only would
> support GCC).
There definitely seem to be some users interested in both livepatch and
clang built kernels so it might come up relatively quickly.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists