From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kees Cook Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:35:43 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20170605170117.6a1fc15e@canb.auug.org.au> <20170615113548.3e4edcf4@canb.auug.org.au> <20170615121220.4331a37b0fb736ec9da4e423@linux-foundation.org> <1497571513.17727.2.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from mail-it0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:37311 "EHLO mail-it0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751946AbdFPAfp (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:35:45 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f44.google.com with SMTP id m47so19534316iti.0 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:35:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1497571513.17727.2.camel@gmail.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Daniel Micay Cc: Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Daniel Micay wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:46 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Andrew Morton >> wrote: >> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:56:30 -0700 Kees Cook >> > wrote: >> > >> > > > > Caused by commit >> > > > > >> > > > > 088a5ecf7581 ("include/linux/string.h: add the option of >> > > > > fortified string.h functions") >> > > > > >> > > > > We really need to fix all the known problems it detects >> > > > > *before* >> > > > > merging this commit ... >> > > > > >> > > > > I have reverted it for today. >> > > > >> > > > I am still needing to revert this every day ... >> > > >> > > I sent a series for -mm (or maintainers) to merge that should >> > > catch >> > > everything. Do you want me to carry it in my kspp tree instead? >> > > (My >> > > original intention was to carry all the fixes and the fortify >> > > patch in >> > > kspp but akpm took it into -mm somewhat unexpectedly, not that I'm >> > > complaining.) >> > >> > This is all getting a bit foggy in my mind. Can we please have a >> > full >> > resend of everything? Sufficient to hopefully produce a tree which >> > has >> > no build-time or run-time regressions? Including the buildbot's >> > recently-reported alpha and xtensa issues? >> >> It's been sent a few times (and a few fixes have been collected in >> other trees already). What I've got in my for-next/kspp tree right now >> is all the fixes that haven't already been picked up by other tree >> maintainers, and I added the fortify patch itself to the end of the >> tree too now since sfr asked for that a few hours ago. >> >> Merged with latest -next, this passes x86_64, i386, arm64, and powerpc >> allmodconfig builds for me. It doesn't pass arm, though. Perhaps we >> need to add an ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE to gate the all*config builds? >> >> Should we let the dust settle first? I'm happy to do whatever makes >> the most sense, I'm just following what (I understand) sfr suggested >> most recently. :) >> >> -Kees >> > > If it needs to build and boot on every architecture, I think we should > gate it on i386, x86_64, arm64 or powerpc where it has been tested. > > I think I know what has to be fixed for alpha and xtensa but there might > be more problems. It's better to wait for someone willing / able to do > it properly by building it themselves and doing basic runtime testing. Sounds good. I've added ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE to the patch (and noted it). -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security