[kernel-hardening] Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features

From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: PaX Team <pageexec@freemail.hu>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@grsecurity.net>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@google.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:32:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5643436F.3060909@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151107223437.891207864301c26862ae15da@gmail.com>

On 07/11/2015 22:34, Emese Revfy wrote:
>>>        * gcc intentional overflow: gcc computes some expressions by overflow
>>>           when it optimizes. Sadly it is doing this in the front end where
>>>           there is no plugin support. Most of these false positives I handle
>>>           from the plugin or sometimes I patch the kernel source code.
>>>           There are some unsolved issues.
>>
>> Has there been any discussion with gcc folks about this problem?
> 
> I never tried it. PaXTeam has some open tickets
> (e.g., https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61311) for a long time so
> because of it I haven't any courage.

I'm not sure I still count as a gcc guy, having averaged at most 1 patch
a year for some time now.  However, I surely would like to know more
about it, and perhaps can look into fixing some of the easier issues.
Do open tickets and CC me (I'm bonzini@gnu.org on the GCC tracker).

Paolo