Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:36:50 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> To: pageexec@...email.hu, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@...gle.com>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> Subject: Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features On 12/11/2015 13:22, PaX Team wrote: > here's a few existing bugs of interest: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61311 (the header issue is > also tracked in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176#c18) > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61313 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41757 (this ship has sailed > already i guess) > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46354 > > i think fixing the LTO API for plugins (including backports to 4.9/5 at > least) would be the most important and useful act for the kernel as it'd > then help convince kernel developers of the merits of adding LTO build > support to linux itself. IIRC, it was tried before and ran into opposition > due to perceived lack of usefulness, something that IPA/LTO capable plugins > could change. Do you have any pointers on the overflows that can be introduced by the front-end? I guess I can also look for hints in the plugin source code. Paolo
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.