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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <162bc469-1654-4636-bf22-e929170ff092@t-8ch.de> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 23:20:32 +0000 From: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de> To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector On 2023-03-27 17:54:11+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 06:32:51PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 09:42:29PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 10:38:39PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > > > I'm not seeing any issue with your approach instead, let's > > > > > keep it as-is for now (also it does what the stack protector is supposed > > > > > to catch anyway). > > > > > > > > There are no guarantess about stack layout and dead writes. > > > > The test doesn't corrupt stack reliably, just 99.99% reliably. > > > > > > Sure but it's for a regtest which can easily be adjusted and its > > > posrtability and ease of maintenance outweights its reliability, > > > especially when in practice what the code does is what we want to > > > test for. And if an extra zero needs to be added to the loop, it > > > can be at a lower cost than maintaining arch-specific asm code. > > > > For the record, I disagree. Use volatile writes at least. > > Yeah I agree on the volatile one. Sounds good. How do we proceed? Do I send a new revision? Will you fix up the series? Will someone create a new patch? If so who? Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists