[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202202021916.9606A43C88@keescook>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 19:18:04 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
George Burgess IV <gbiv@...gle.com>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v5] fortify: Add Clang support
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:27:11PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:30 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > +#define BOS const __pass_object_size(1)
> > +#define BOS0 const __pass_object_size(0)
>
> A dumb bikeshed, but would you mind naming these BOS1 and BOS0, and
> perhaps consider adding a comment or pointer or link to something that
> describes why we use the two different modes? I recognize that the
> code already uses the two different modes already without comments,
> but this might be a nice place to point folks like myself to so that
> in a month or so when I forget what the difference is between modes
> (again), we have a shorter trail of breadcrumbs.
Sure, I can do that. My expectation was to entirely eliminate mode 0
usage in the future.
Though now that things are so close, I'll just do some builds with the
last few users switched over. But maybe memcmp() was a pain? I'll go
check...
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists