[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKXAfOa_2kbWTN==Uibw94QM06Xw+0Bw9ZioSpiaxXsBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 13:39:01 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add the option of fortified string.h functions
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> ---->8----
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> index f742596..b5327f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> @@ -18,7 +18,8 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_EFI_ARMSTUB) += -I$(srctree)/scripts/dtc/libfdt
>
> KBUILD_CFLAGS := $(cflags-y) -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING \
> $(call cc-option,-ffreestanding) \
> - $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector)
> + $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector) \
> + -D__NO_FORTIFY
>
> GCOV_PROFILE := n
> KASAN_SANITIZE := n
> ---->8----
Can we split the compile time from runtime checks so the efi stub is
still covered by the build-time checks? (Or was there a compile
failure I missed?)
-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.
