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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZB/kOb8bl390wBwS@1wt.eu>
Date:   Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:20:41 +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 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.

That's what I suspected, reason why I mentioned both options ;-)
Perfect then, many thanks Paul!

Willy