[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7102975e-88a5-3555-21e1-f07d595bc235@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:32:31 -0400
From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>
To: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: disable under COMPILE_TEST
On 2016-06-12 20:18, Emese Revfy wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 15:25:39 -0700
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't like this because it means if someone specifically selects
>> some plugins in their .config, and the headers are missing, the kernel
>> will successfully compile. For many plugins, this results in a kernel
>> that lacks the requested security features, and that I really do not
>> want to have happening. I'm okay leaving these disabled for compile
>> tests for now. We can revisit this once more distros have plugins
>> enabled by default.
>
> You are right. Your patch is safer.
>
Why not make it so that if COMPILE_TEST is enabled, the build warns if
it can't find the headers, otherwise it fails? That way, people who are
doing all*config builds but don't have the headers will still get some
build coverage, and the people who are enabling it as a security feature
will still get build failures.
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.
