kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH 00/23] kconfig: move compiler capability tests to Kconfig

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAR3OMh9Q9ZfaBq=FpSJ-+DT5-RH_20ohV-iu34pX9hFKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:57:03 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        uml-devel <user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] kconfig: move compiler capability tests to Kconfig

2018-02-21 19:52 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>> 2018-02-21 18:56 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Masahiro Yamada
>>> <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>>>> 2018-02-20 0:18 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@...il.com>:
>>
>> Let me clarify my concern.
>>
>> When we test the compiler flag, is there a case
>> where a particular flag depends on -m{32,64} ?
>>
>> For example, is there a compiler that supports -fstack-protector
>> for 64bit mode, but unsupports it for 32bit mode?
>>
>>   $(cc-option -m32)                     ->  y
>>   $(cc-option -m64)                     ->  y
>>   $(cc-option -fstack-protector)        ->  y
>>   $(cc-option -m32 -fstack-protector)   ->  n
>>   $(cc-option -m64 -fstack-protector)   ->  y
>>
>> I guess this is unlikely to happen,
>> but I am not whether it is zero possibility.
>>
>> If this could happen,
>> $(cc-option ) must be evaluated together with
>> correct bi-arch option (either -m32 or -m64).
>>
>>
>> Currently, -m32/-m64 is specified in Makefile,
>> but we are moving compiler tests to Kconfig
>> and, CONFIG_64BIT can be dynamically toggled in Kconfig.
>
> I don't think it can happen for this particular combination (stack protector
> and word size), but I'm sure we'll eventually run into options that
> need to be tested in combination. For the current CFLAGS_KERNEL
> setting, we definitely have the case of needing the variables to be
> evaluated in a specific order.
>




I was thinking of how we can handle complex cases
in the current approach.



(Case 1)

Compiler flag -foo and -bar interacts, so
we also need to check the combination of the two.


config CC_HAS_FOO
        def_bool $(cc-option -foo)

config CC_HAS_BAR
        def_bool $(cc-option -bar)

config CC_HAS_FOO_WITH_BAR
        def_bool $(cc-option -foo -bar)



(Case 2)
Compiler flag -foo is sensitive to word-size.
So, we need to test this option together with -m32/-m64.
User can toggle CONFIG_64BIT, like i386/x86_64.


config CC_NEEDS_M64
          def_bool $(cc-option -m64) && 64BIT

config CC_NEEDS_M32
          def_bool $(cc-option -m32) && !64BIT

config CC_HAS_FOO
         bool
         default $(cc-option -m64 -foo) if CC_NEEDS_M64
         default $(cc-option -m32 -foo) if CC_NEEDS_M32
         default $(cc-option -foo)



(Case 3)
Compiler flag -foo is sensitive to endian-ness.


config CC_NEEDS_BIG_ENDIAN
          def_bool $(cc-option -mbig-endian) && CPU_BIG_ENDIAN

config CC_NEEDS_LITTLE_ENDIAN
          def_bool $(cc-option -mlittle-endian) && CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN

config CC_HAS_FOO
         bool
         default $(cc-option -mbig-endian -foo) if CC_NEEDS_BIG_ENDIAN
         default $(cc-option -mlittle-endian -foo) if CC_NEEDS_LITTLE_ENDIAN
         default $(cc-option -foo)




Hmm, I think I can implement those somehow.
But, I hope we do not have many instances like this...


If you know more naive cases, please share your knowledge.

Thanks!


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.