From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com From: "PaX Team" Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:22:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <56448481.5348.383139DB@pageexec.freemail.hu> In-reply-to: <5643436F.3060909@redhat.com> References: <20151106235545.97d0e86a5f1f80c98e0e9de6@gmail.com>, <20151107223437.891207864301c26862ae15da@gmail.com>, <5643436F.3060909@redhat.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Kees Cook , Paolo Bonzini Cc: Brad Spengler , Greg KH , Theodore Tso , Josh Triplett List-ID: On 11 Nov 2015 at 14:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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). here's a few existing bugs of interest: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61311 (the header issue is also tracked in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176#c18) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61313 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41757 (this ship has sailed already i guess) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46354 i think fixing the LTO API for plugins (including backports to 4.9/5 at least) would be the most important and useful act for the kernel as it'd then help convince kernel developers of the merits of adding LTO build support to linux itself. IIRC, it was tried before and ran into opposition due to perceived lack of usefulness, something that IPA/LTO capable plugins could change. thanks, PaX Team