From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF26C47247 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 23:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332A4206B8 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 23:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="Ua2Y5pt+" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729119AbgEEXhB (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2020 19:37:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52390 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728717AbgEEXhB (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2020 19:37:01 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1044.google.com (mail-pj1-x1044.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1044]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCD88C061A0F for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 16:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1044.google.com with SMTP id q24so47855pjd.1 for ; Tue, 05 May 2020 16:37:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tV8k3SS2CHeSg6+79pVabsils9K32cepGXeLdcOAQJE=; b=Ua2Y5pt+OErrGRBo/BnuHn8XmNGatlMJtl73UVMhbLZg9dIgLiG9H8VPBxyed0B7Xj pKmDsX4Rt83fv/4OVyyvTJV9HeDQ4+kLkvr+rptl0op7KRmSeH7EEnl4TthCdLWJj7yy JkOXNNPblnEzyNfdhD5kzDOuSmwuup3xkl1ednTKQG2+sWMKdTRE+ozniU56+75e2UpW VgN4pKmjV+T/eqdZgP6qye1nvK3c+p+Ai+HpeHNTSIBuDmyBksU9kAkOSB84wBrhhvZi ucE3e39d1LJMsPkYyXacggBre/HMsfXKi7/unaDw6t18STqzlf/Ja24RhpdClm7LSL79 cmTQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tV8k3SS2CHeSg6+79pVabsils9K32cepGXeLdcOAQJE=; b=TgT6HWevCxM7HL0CbqX6QmW8CY7y0JJpUzGnJ2JU3d/Kqh8ZzCtmcwabsEYxM2yZ+E 2QVrDTPj/DjKzzYMIMJI1YaIzYfMYoklLT8rZQJH/qnBkAZ2Dd6ET6uVJopgWQT6Hc6E s+632yla1Js9xwyNQ6QRHjJMCvN7/GQrDV8ZY99+WEvMhZoL62uzxyttzeYOE+BoT+i+ zV8ckzHrIvd2YqZORTv9XwcRDDa6aX+dSy4G3j9+6eLMagKs9sHWid21PQQfy/3T6hBJ SRwBoDlLIzr4GObp5NhHQWK3ZyvlxppVR1E3le7nrdpgZE+NWwNKAETaWkeRcnZexq/D 9hRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaD7mSkSUl2ZlDrSij+tDUaV01KAxnEX4pywUn5890ieOXME6zs pnKW4NeATdL52tf9YHT2KN81ik9FLbgr+rj/AxQGVQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLovBrf/kLoL/BVlwKUEVNCB111jD4tkdcRD9SkmNC5GRRsdT6HJAVxN1k0TY4QYYbCy47f8CCYIzjl3ZA/+OM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:6488:: with SMTP id h8mr5982493pjj.51.1588721819875; Tue, 05 May 2020 16:36:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200505215503.691205-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20200505222540.GA230458@ubuntu-s3-xlarge-x86> <202005051617.F9B32B5526@keescook> In-Reply-To: From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 16:36:49 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kbuild: disable FORTIFY_SOURCE on clang-10 To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Kees Cook , George Burgess Cc: Nathan Chancellor , "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" , LKML , clang-built-linux , Arnd Bergmann Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:22 PM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:19 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > > > (Though as was mentioned, it's likely that FORTIFY_SOURCE isn't working > > _at all_ under Clang, so I may still send a patch to depend on !clang > > just to avoid surprises until it's fixed, but I haven't had time to > > chase down a solution yet.) Not good. If it's completely broken, turn it off, and we'll prioritize fixing. > That might be the most coherent thing to do, at least so that people > don't get some false sense of mitigation. Do we have a better test for "this is working as intended" or not other than excessive stack usage, since that doesn't repro for clang-9? -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers