linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZCJ0HDbV1P0Lzv6i@1wt.eu>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:59:08 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>
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

Hi Thomas,

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:20:32PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> 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?

Please just send an additional patch to be applied on top of the existing
series that turns this to volatile, and add a Reported-by: with Alexey's
e-mail.

You may even verify that once you do this it's safe to remove the
optimize attributes.

Thank you!
Willy