[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170510111224.GA28159@leverpostej>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 12:12:25 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
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 Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:39:01PM -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?)
Without this, the EFI stub won't build for arm64, due to the lack of a
fortify_panic(). The arm64 __efistub_ symbol mangling prevents us using
the usual kernel version, which would be wrong to use anyway.
Thanks,
Mark.
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.
