From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753233AbcAGTLk (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:11:40 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176]:34604 "EHLO mail-io0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753080AbcAGTLi (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:11:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20160106233656.GA9316@www.outflux.net> <20160107113029.GE19062@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 20:11:37 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: V4cuqcOjIhb5eDSfi_Qx6C1X5pE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: fix atags_to_fdt with stack-protector-strong From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Kees Cook Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Arnd Bergmann , Simon Horman , Geert Uytterhoeven , Laurent Pinchart , Magnus Damm , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Kees, On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> Also, I suspect that all of the decompressor should be built with >> -fno-stack-protector as we don't have sufficient environment here. >> Maybe it should be placed in the global CFLAGS for the decompressor? > > I prefer keeping it disabled in as narrow a range as possible. If > other code gains a level of complexity that it triggers the stack > protector code insertion, I think that's worth examining when it > happens. If this ever becomes an actual burden, then yeah, let's do it > for the whole decompressor, but I think it'd be best to revisit it if > it happens again. What's the failure mode if the stack protector code insertion is triggered? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds