linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools: bpf: Disable stack protector

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:   Sun, 22 Jan 2023 20:28:15 -0800
From:   Peter Foley <pefoley2@...oley.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com>
Cc:     Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: bpf: Disable stack protector

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:34 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/23 11:28 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> >
> > While working on clang patch to disable stack protector
> > for BPF target I've noticed that there is an option to
> > disable default configuration file altogether [1]:
> >
> >    --no-default-config
> >
> > Should we consider it instead of -fno-stack-protector
> > to shield ourselves from any potential distro-specific
> > changes?
>
> Peter, could you help check whether adding --no-default-config works
> in your environment or not?
>
> >
> > [1] https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangCommandLineReference.html#cmdoption-clang-no-default-config

I guess I could, but I'm not convinced that's the right thing to do.
Ideally problems with distro-specific configs would cause loud
failures (like this one) and result in fixes like the changes being
made to upstream clang/gcc.
Simply unconditionally disabling distro configs seems to be the wrong
way to approach this and makes it less likely that future problems
will be reported in the first place.