[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YA/PLdX5m9f4v+Yl@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:13:33 +0100
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] gcc-plugins: Handle GCC version mismatch for OOT
modules
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:07:57PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:35AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > If people use a different compiler, they must be
> > > > prepared for any possible problem.
> > > >
> > > > Using different compiler flags for in-tree and out-of-tree
> > > > is even more dangerous.
> > > >
> > > > For example, CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT is enabled
> > > > for in-tree build, and then disabled for out-of-tree modules,
> > > > the struct layout will mismatch, won't it?
> > >
> > > If you read the patch you'll notice that it handles that case, when it's
> > > caused by GCC mismatch.
> > >
> > > However, as alluded to in the [1] footnote, it doesn't handle the case
> > > where the OOT build system doesn't have gcc-plugin-devel installed.
> > > Then CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT gets silently disabled and the build
> > > succeeds! That happens even without a GCC mismatch.
> >
> >
> > Ah, sorry.
> >
> > I responded too early before reading the patch fully.
> >
> > But, I do not like to make RANDSTRUCT a special case.
> >
> > I'd rather want to stop building for any plugin.
>
> Other than RANDSTRUCT there doesn't seem to be any problem with
> disabling them (and printing a warning) in the OOT build. Why not give
> users that option? It's harmless, and will make distro's (and their
> users') lives easier.
>
> Either GCC mismatch is ok, or it's not. Let's not half-enforce it.
As I said earlier, it's not ok, we can not support it at all.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists