[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5643436F.3060909@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:32:31 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@...gle.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features
On 07/11/2015 22:34, Emese Revfy wrote:
>>> * gcc intentional overflow: gcc computes some expressions by overflow
>>> when it optimizes. Sadly it is doing this in the front end where
>>> there is no plugin support. Most of these false positives I handle
>>> from the plugin or sometimes I patch the kernel source code.
>>> There are some unsolved issues.
>>
>> Has there been any discussion with gcc folks about this problem?
>
> I never tried it. PaXTeam has some open tickets
> (e.g., https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61311) for a long time so
> because of it I haven't any courage.
I'm not sure I still count as a gcc guy, having averaged at most 1 patch
a year for some time now. However, I surely would like to know more
about it, and perhaps can look into fixing some of the easier issues.
Do open tickets and CC me (I'm bonzini@....org on the GCC tracker).
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
