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

From: Emese Revfy <re.emese@gmail.com>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	PaX Team <pageexec@freemail.hu>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@grsecurity.net>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@google.com>
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 23:07:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151107230702.e10955217163dee58f989daf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151107054217.GA32075@x>

> I agree in both cases: having the plugin usable in "make it so" mode for
> the benefit of legacy or out-of-tree code, and having it usable in
> "suggest changes to the source" (or outright *edit* the source and
> produce a patch) mode to avoid actually mandating the plugin.  Not least
> of which because I'd find it surprising if the plugin ever worked across
> as broad a range of GCC versions as the kernel typically wants to
> support.

All gcc plugins in PaX support all plugin capable gcc versions (4.5-5). 
This is PaXTeam's requirement if somebody writes a plugin for PaX.
And of course the plugin infrastructure handles gcc versions that don't
support plugins.

-- 
Emese