linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] RISC-V: enable rust

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: Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:46:38 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, 
	Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, 
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@...gle.com>, Ramon de C Valle <rcvalle@...gle.com>, 
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] RISC-V: enable rust

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:01 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Is that even needed? We already have ARCH_SUPPORTS_CFI_CLANG and AFAIU
> rust supports it if clang does, so a second option is superfluous?

>From a quick look, I don't see it enabled in any RISC-V built-in
target in `rustc` yet.

It may also still be the case that KCFI needs some tweaks for, say,
RISC-V, before the flag actually works, i.e. we couldn't just test the
flag in that case -- Ramon: how likely is it that RISC-V would work if
KCFI works for aarch64 and x86_64?

> I'm reading back what I wrote, and I must have been trying to get out
> the door or something because none of it really makes that much sense.
> Of course an unknown option should be detectable at build time and not
> be a silent breakage. Maybe I should have written the patch for this
> before sending the mail rather than writing the mail based on what was
> in my head.

No worries, it happens. I probably added to the confusion when I
replied with the "testing the unstable flag".

Cheers,
Miguel