linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] FORTIFY_SOURCE updates for v5.18-rc1

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:   Sat, 26 Mar 2022 12:40:18 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        George Burgess IV <gbiv@...gle.com>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] FORTIFY_SOURCE updates for v5.18-rc1

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 12:29 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Because if all the compiler issues and warnings have been sorted out,
> it sounds to me like the compile-time side could/should be done
> unconditionally if there are no runtime downsides.

.. or do the existing compiler warnings for the builtins already cover
all cases, and the only reason the fortify-source code has
compile-time warnings is that the option takes over the builtins?

So maybe there's no upside to the fortify-source code for that case?

              Linus