From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com References: <20151106235545.97d0e86a5f1f80c98e0e9de6@gmail.com> <20151107223437.891207864301c26862ae15da@gmail.com> <5643436F.3060909@redhat.com> <56448481.5348.383139DB@pageexec.freemail.hu> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <564487E2.7090603@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:36:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56448481.5348.383139DB@pageexec.freemail.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features To: pageexec@freemail.hu, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Kees Cook Cc: Brad Spengler , Greg KH , Theodore Tso , Josh Triplett List-ID: On 12/11/2015 13:22, PaX Team wrote: > 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. Do you have any pointers on the overflows that can be introduced by the front-end? I guess I can also look for hints in the plugin source code. Paolo