[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180909165647.GC22251@thunk.org>
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.
