[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877f1okjl9.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 22:00:18 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add the option of fortified string.h functions
Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net> writes:
> Hi Daniel and ppc people,
>
> (ppc people: this does some compile and run time bounds checking on
> string functions. It's cool - currently it picks up a lot of random
> things so it will require some more work across the tree, but hopefully
> it will eventually hit mainline.)
Cool!
> Once those were added, I needed to disable fortification in prom_init.c,
> as we apparently can't have new symbols there. (I don't understand that
> file so I haven't dug into it.)
We can refer to new symbols from there, we just have a script to check
we don't refer to anything new inadvertently.
prom_init() is sort of a shim that runs before the kernel, except it's
linked with the kernel, but ideally wouldn't be, but we never bothered
actually making it separate. O_o
> We also have problems with the feature fixup tests leading to a panic on
> boot. It relates to getting what I think are asm labels(?) and how we
> address them. I have just disabled fortify here for now; I think the
> code could be rewritten to take the labels as unsigned char *, but I
> haven't dug into it.
OK, yeah it's using asm labels to compare the patched code vs the
expected result. Can probably be fixed by making them char[] like we do
for other things like __start_interrupts etc.
cheers
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.
