From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:28:58 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good Message-Id: <20080418002858.de236663.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080418071945.GA18044@elte.hu> References: <20080417160331.b4729f0c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080417224908.67cec814@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20080417231038.72363123.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080418071945.GA18044@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner , Pekka Enberg , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, James Morris , Stephen Smalley List-ID: On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:19:45 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:49:08 -0700 Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:03:31 -0700 > > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I repulled all the trees an hour or two ago, installed everything on > > > > an 8-way x86_64 box and: > > > > > > > > > > > > stack-protector: > > > > > > > > Testing -fstack-protector-all feature > > > > No -fstack-protector-stack-frame! > > > > -fstack-protector-all test failed > > > > > > do you have a stack-protector capable GCC? I guess not. > > > > > > This is a catch-22. You do not have stack-protector. Should we make that > > > a silent failure? or do you want to know that you don't have a security > > > feature you thought you had.... complaining seems to be the right thing to do imo. > > > > A #warning sounds more appropriate. > > this warning is telling the user that the security feature that got > enabled in the .config is completely, 100% not working due to using a > stack-protector-incapable GCC. I doubt if anyone will care much. > it's analogous as if there was a bug in gcc that made SELinux totally > ineffective in some mitigate-exploit-damage scenarios. Not really. In the selinux case we don't know that it'll break at compile time. > No harm done on a > perfectly bug-free system - but once a bug happens that SELinux should > have mitigated, the breakage becomes real. Having a prominent warning is > the _minimum_. > > having a build failure would be nice too because this is a build > environment problem. (not a build warning - warnings can easily be > missed because on a typical kernel build there's so many false positives > that get emitted by various other warning mechanisms) Arjan? > Yeah, #error would work too. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org