[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1494370967.7678.1.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 19:02:47 -0400
From: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: "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 Tue, 2017-05-09 at 13:39 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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
It might just need fortify_panic defined somewhere. It seems like the
place I defined it on x86 covers this but I might be wrong about that.
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.
