Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:33:23 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk> Cc: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, minipli@...linux.so, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>, "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] gcc-plugins: Add the initify gcc plugin On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27 2017, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Andrew Donnellan >> <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com> wrote: >>> On 01/02/17 07:24, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com> >>>> >>>> The kernel already has a mechanism to free up code and data memory that >>>> is only used during kernel or module initialization. This plugin will >>>> teach the compiler to find more such code and data that can be freed >>>> after initialization. >>> >>> >>> Currently checking whether we can wire this up for powerpc without too many >>> problems... >> >> Cool, thanks. FWIW, note that this plugin is a bit back-burnered at >> the moment. I've got this in my -next tree still, but it needs some >> rather large changes to how it does its annotations before Linus will >> accept it. > > Why not just hardcode the annotations in the plugin itself? I'd expect > just making it know about mem*, str*, and the various *printf/printk > functions would get 90% of the benefits. The prototypes of these > aren't gonna change anytime soon, so there's no compelling reason to > keep the annotations with the declarations. The plugin can still do > its sanity checking when it compiles a function with one of these names. Yup, I think that's another entirely workable solution too. I just meant to say that I don't have time at the moment to look at it (if you want to, please do), and I think Emese is already happy with how the annotations work, so I don't think she'd want to work on it either (but she can correct me if I'm wrong). -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
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.