[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191022164936.GA1451@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 17:49:36 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:30:53AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 05:28:27PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 09:10:21AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > +ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> > > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack
> > > +DISABLE_SCS := -fno-sanitize=shadow-call-stack
> > > +export DISABLE_SCS
> > > +endif
> >
> > I think it would be preferable to follow the example of CC_FLAGS_FTRACE
> > so that this can be filtered out, e.g.
> >
> > ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> > CFLAGS_SCS := -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack
> ^^^ was this meant to be CC_FLAGS_SCS here
>
> > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(CFLAGS_SCS)
> ^^^ and here?
Whoops; yes in both cases...
> > export CC_FLAGS_SCS
> > endif
> >
> > ... with removal being:
> >
> > CFLAGS_REMOVE := $(CC_FLAGS_SCS)
> >
> > ... or:
> >
> > CFLAGS_REMOVE_obj.o := $(CC_FLAGS_SCS)
> >
> > That way you only need to define the flags once, so the enable and
> > disable falgs remain in sync by construction.
^^^^^ "flags" here, too.
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.
