Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2018 12:56:47 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> Cc: Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@...il.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Checked C? On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 02:59:12PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 08:22:44AM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote: > > Slashdot reports that Microsoft have come up with something they call > > "checked C". It claims to prevent a wide variety of memory & pointer > > bugs, using a mix of compile-time and run-time checks, at moderate > > overheads. > > > > Implementation is as extensions to Clang so it might be hard to apply > > to the kernel which I think has some GNU-isms. Perhaps still worth a > > look? What would be really interesting would be implementing the Microsoft extensions as Clang plugins, so the kernel changes don't require distributions to ship a modified Clang. Whoever does this will need to remember that kernel modifications need to work with: * Clang with the extensions * Clang without the extensions (in case the extensions are Clang version dependent, and the system has a Clang which is too old). * Gcc without the extensions We've been doing that sort of thing already, using CPP magic, so there are plenty of examples about ways of doing that. - Ted
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.