linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 00/33] Compile-time thread-safety checking

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]

Message-ID: <20250207034410.GA4596@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 04:44:10 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/33] Compile-time thread-safety checking

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 07:20:33PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> Combining approach #1 and #2 may somehow be possible, but it is
> currently eluding me. Clearly, based on the bugs that Bart found, some
> way to do tree-wide analysis is very useful!
> One idea was to have "capability-selective tree-wide analysis" (such
> as mutex only) be controllable via a Kconfig option - the
> implementation of that (without excessive ifdefs sprinkled
> everywhere), however, most likely requires compiler support.
> 
> Depending on the feedback that results from these RFCs, I think we
> will be able to plan better which direction things should go.

Opt-in just means some code will never get it.  So I think we'll
need to eventually force all the useful capabilities everywhere.

Doing that step by step by opt-in/opt-out for early adopters sounds
fine.