[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 10:58:40 +0100
From: David Sterba <dave@...os.cz>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for kernel self protection
features
On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 10:58:10PM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
> > > Could the plugin operate in a mode where it emits warnings to add such
> > > annotations explicitly in the code, rather than just automatically
> > > moving the data?
> >
> > That would be nice for the constanfy mode as well, especially as some
> > people aren't using gcc to build the kernel anymore, so it would be good
> > to mark these "for real" in the .c code wherever possible to allow other
> > compilers to take advantage of the plugin indirectly.
>
> Yes, I can do it of course. There can be two kernel config options:
> * warning (dry run) mode: the plugin just prints out the warnings
> * constify: do the constification automatically
It would be great if all the plugins can run in a verbose mode and
describe the changes or at least point to the file:line. It should help
to understand and review the resulting assembly code where applicable.
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.
