linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/24] x86/traps: Move arch/x86/kernel/traps.c to arch/x86/entry/

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]

Date:   Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:23:27 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Martin Liška <mliska@...e.cz>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Chester Lin <clin@...e.com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/24] x86/traps: Move arch/x86/kernel/traps.c to arch/x86/entry/

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:19 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 7:05 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > The above 2 hunks should go in include/linux/compiler_attributes.h,
> > but yes.  I'd been meaning to send such a patch; it's nice to have
>
> Note that `compiler_attributes.h` does not keep attributes that depend
> on config options.

Sure, I'd drop the config check and define it conditionally on the
__has_attribute check alone. Does it hurt to mark functions as
__attribute__((no_stack_protector)) when we're not building with
-fstack-protector*? Nope!

> On one hand, I feel we should put them there. On the other hand, I
> want to avoid making a mess again since the purpose of the file is to
> keep things clean for the majority of attributes.
>
> Perhaps we should do a middle-ground, and only allow those that depend
> on a single config option, i.e. no nesting `#if`s or complex
> conditions.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers