[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jL7pWWXuJMinghn+3GjQLLBYguEtwNdZSQy++XGpGtsHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 14:07:51 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Joao Moreira <jmoreira@...e.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] crypto: x86: Fix indirect function call casts
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:00 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Given the above, the current efforts to improve the Linux security,
> > and the upcoming kernel support to compilers with CFI features, this
> > creates macros to be used to build the needed function definitions,
> > to be used in camellia, cast6, serpent, twofish, and aesni.
>
> So why not change the function prototypes to be compatible with common_glue_*_t
> instead, rather than wrapping them with another layer of functions? Is it
> because indirect calls into asm code won't be allowed with CFI?
I don't know why they're not that way to begin with. But given that
the casting was already happening, this is just moving it to a place
where CFI won't be angry. :)
> > crypto: x86/crypto: Use new glue function macros
>
> This one should be "x86/serpent", not "x86/crypto".
Oops, yes, that's my typo. I'll fix for v4. Do the conversions
themselves look okay (the changes are pretty mechanical)? If so,
Herbert, do you want a v4 with the typo fix, or do you want to fix
that up yourself?
Thanks!
--
Kees Cook
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.
