[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5658B525-6642-43A2-B14C-BC4AA916FBCC@alien8.de>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 18:46:39 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
x86@...nel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: add prototype for __fortify_panic()
On May 30, 2024 6:23:36 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com> wrote:
>On 5/30/2024 8:42 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29.05.24 г. 21:09 ч., Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>> As discussed in [1] add a prototype for __fortify_panic() to fix the
>>> 'make W=1 C=1' warning:
>>>
>>> arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c:535:6: warning: symbol '__fortify_panic' was not declared. Should it be static?
>>
>> Actually doesn't it make sense to have this defined under ../string.h ?
>> Actually given that we don't have any string fortification under the
>> boot/ why have the fortify _* functions at all ?
>
>I'll let Kees answer these questions since I just took guidance from him :)
The more important question is how does the decompressor build even know of this symbol? And then make it forget it again instead of adding silly prototypes...
--
Sent from a small device: formatting sucks and brevity is inevitable.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists