[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKSU+Nw37EoHsPYAL2_CHVffgML2Vi0aJkRCK4PxATUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:33:23 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, minipli@...linux.so,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] gcc-plugins: Add the initify gcc plugin
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27 2017, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Andrew Donnellan
>> <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/02/17 07:24, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
>>>>
>>>> The kernel already has a mechanism to free up code and data memory that
>>>> is only used during kernel or module initialization. This plugin will
>>>> teach the compiler to find more such code and data that can be freed
>>>> after initialization.
>>>
>>>
>>> Currently checking whether we can wire this up for powerpc without too many
>>> problems...
>>
>> Cool, thanks. FWIW, note that this plugin is a bit back-burnered at
>> the moment. I've got this in my -next tree still, but it needs some
>> rather large changes to how it does its annotations before Linus will
>> accept it.
>
> Why not just hardcode the annotations in the plugin itself? I'd expect
> just making it know about mem*, str*, and the various *printf/printk
> functions would get 90% of the benefits. The prototypes of these
> aren't gonna change anytime soon, so there's no compelling reason to
> keep the annotations with the declarations. The plugin can still do
> its sanity checking when it compiles a function with one of these names.
Yup, I think that's another entirely workable solution too. I just
meant to say that I don't have time at the moment to look at it (if
you want to, please do), and I think Emese is already happy with how
the annotations work, so I don't think she'd want to work on it either
(but she can correct me if I'm wrong).
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
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.
