Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 20:04:40 +1000 From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> To: Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org Cc: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: Don't fortify prom_init Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net> writes: > prom_init is a bit special; in theory it should be able to be > linked separately to the kernel. To keep this from getting too > complex, the symbols that prom_init.c uses are checked. > > Fortification adds symbols, and it gets quite messy as it includes > things like panic(). So just don't fortify prom_init.c for now. Calling panic() at that point is unlikely to work well. > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> > Cc: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net> > > --- > > This will need to go in before the main fortify support, but it > doesn't make any sense in the absence of fortify. I think it would > make most sense for Kees to queue this up with the main fortify patch, > with an Ack from mpe? Yeah that's fine by me. > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c > index dd8a04f3053a..613f79f03877 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ > > #undef DEBUG_PROM > > +/* we cannot use FORTIFY as it brings in new symbols */ > +#define __NO_FORTIFY > + > #include <stdarg.h> > #include <linux/kernel.h> > #include <linux/string.h> Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> cheers
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.