linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] tools/nolibc: add support for 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, 26 Mar 2023 17:17:33 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux@...ssschuh.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] tools/nolibc: add support for stack protector

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 08:13:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 09:36:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 04:45:08PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > Hello Paul,
> > > 
> > > This is essentially Thomas' work so instead of paraphrasing his work,
> > > I'm pasting his description below. I've tested his changes on all
> > > supported archs, applied a tiny modification with his permission
> > > to continue to support passing CFLAGS, and for me this is all fine.
> > > In a short summary this adds support for stack protector to i386 and
> > > x86_64 in nolibc, and the accompanying test to the selftest program.
> > > 
> > > A new test category was added, "protection", which currently has a
> > > single test. Archs that support it will report "OK" there and those
> > > that do not will report "SKIPPED", as is already the case for tests
> > > that cannot be run.
> > > 
> > > This was applied on top of your dev.2023.03.20a branch. I'm reasonably
> > > confident with the nature of the changes, so if your queue for 6.4 is
> > > not closed yet, it can be a good target, otherwise 6.5 will be fine as
> > > well.
> > 
> > I have applied and pushed it out, thank you both!
> > 
> > We are a little late in the process, but if testing goes well, I can't
> > see why this cannot make the v6.4 merge window.
> 
> And "make run-user" says "124 test(s) passed", which looks promising.

Indeed!

> But "make run" says "0 test(s) passed".
> 
> (They initially both said "0 test(s) passed", but that was because I
> forgot to build qemu-x86_64 after an upgrade.)
> 
> Please see below for the full output of "make run".  Am I missing
> some other package?

Hmmm I think that the output of run.out will be needed here. We'll
need to understand whether it fails to boot the kernel or to start
the executable.

Willy