[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191124211225.GC8990@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 22:12:25 +0100
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: lkrg-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: LKRG compilation hardening flags
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 07:09:00PM +0000, Patrick Schleizer wrote:
> Could you please kindly have a look and let me know if something needs
> fixing?
>
> (This is what happened building LKRG using DKMS. Shouldn't make a
> difference though, since it is using the usual upstream makefile.)
>
> checksec -f /lib/modules/4.19.0-6-amd64/updates/dkms/p_lkrg.ko
> RELRO STACK CANARY NX PIE RPATH
> RUNPATH Symbols FORTIFY Fortified Fortifiable FILE
> No RELRO Canary found NX disabled Not an ELF file No
> RPATH No RUNPATH 866 Symbols Yes 0 2
> /lib/modules/4.19.0-6-amd64/updates/dkms/p_lkrg.ko
>
> hardening-check /lib/modules/4.19.0-6-amd64/updates/dkms/p_lkrg.ko
> /lib/modules/4.19.0-6-amd64/updates/dkms/p_lkrg.ko:
> Position Independent Executable: not a known ELF type!? ()
> Stack protected: yes
> Fortify Source functions: no, only unprotected functions found!
> Read-only relocations: no, non-ELF (ignored)
> Immediate binding: no, non-ELF (ignored)
These scripts you used are meant for userspace binaries, and they only
partially make sense for a kernel module - maybe only for the "stack
protector" check. I think there's nothing to improve here, but Adam
might want to double-check.
> I guess, should something need fixing, it's a task for the upstream
> makefile?
Yes.
Alexander
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.
