From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Sender: Paolo Bonzini References: <20151106235545.97d0e86a5f1f80c98e0e9de6@gmail.com> <20151107223437.891207864301c26862ae15da@gmail.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <5643436F.3060909@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:32:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151107223437.891207864301c26862ae15da@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Kees Cook Cc: PaX Team , Brad Spengler , Greg KH , Theodore Tso , Josh Triplett List-ID: 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