[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 12:28:07 +0100
From: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, Theodore Tso <tytso@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 00:21:55 -0800
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 11:07:02PM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
> >
> > > I agree in both cases: having the plugin usable in "make it so" mode for
> > > the benefit of legacy or out-of-tree code, and having it usable in
> > > "suggest changes to the source" (or outright *edit* the source and
> > > produce a patch) mode to avoid actually mandating the plugin. Not least
> > > of which because I'd find it surprising if the plugin ever worked across
> > > as broad a range of GCC versions as the kernel typically wants to
> > > support.
> >
> > All gcc plugins in PaX support all plugin capable gcc versions (4.5-5).
>
> The kernel supports older GCC than that, though.
>
> > And of course the plugin infrastructure handles gcc versions that don't
> > support plugins.
>
> ...huh? How does *that* work?
If a gcc plugin kernel option is enabled then the kernel Makefile prints
this out if the gcc version can support plugins but there is a problem:
"warning, your gcc installation does not support plugins, perhaps the necessary headers are missing?"
or this if the version is too old:
"warning, your gcc version does not support plugins, you should upgrade it to gcc 4.5 at least"
The compilation goes on without plugins.
--
Emese
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.
