Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLnho=kMVwZgV0rEs=brt2OZZrxEcYCK=8kt5kLbraZwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180210054843.z3g7wvcmlccvww3h@huvuddator> <CAK7LNARHmAF2SxBcc1aUEH5MMzUo_furLevqy7QzGxqNRHYiyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180210074924.3nhxsza5zdbaahxx@huvuddator> <20180210080556.mycqsjhxbaguwhay@huvuddator>
 <20180210085519.737ckf4bcl57h4g2@huvuddator> <CAGXu5jKQgxxC2RQL0dxLKFVED2v-LiWKjtXY3DDpfwAXbnxM4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFz-SJ970iqDsR8-Ke4z6WvB4n9RXAeen8pG=+YJWubETw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jLo0iuMsH89vj3nr8sv+1YvXfXgoPeBdxHwZm5i=DWoOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFxdx3FYE6YGifRR=BSG9QzXwgThj5z7RmV5P5+RpNXSiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFyPyYyG-riaBQU5cGp_sC=r8mf9Mg6L=DUEH6EyQfWYwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180211103432.pf2ot6nd7nbhdhsy@huvuddator> <CAGXu5jLtFcvbazxUvL_=6uT+a8m0JQEB7v0OE41Z-PMoX_fWpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFkk2KRAjA80Y74Nahf2Nk_5yOucoa1y2Xp54F2k-Hv0xgTAFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGXu5jLnho=kMVwZgV0rEs=brt2OZZrxEcYCK=8kt5kLbraZwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:35:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFkk2KS=MyebbfyrbYETQHaWMNU5rrYbB0khxy+VXrvc5Tshtw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] kconfig: support new special property shell=
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> Old? That's not the case. The check for -fno-stack-protector will
>>> likely be needed forever, as some distro compilers enable
>>> stack-protector by default. So when someone wants to explicitly build
>>> without stack-protector (or if the compiler's stack-protector is
>>> detected as broken), we must force it off for the kernel build.
>>
>> What I meant is whether it makes sense to test if the
>> -fno-stack-protector option is supported. Can we reasonably assume
>> that passing -fno-stack-protector to the compiler won't cause an
>> error?
>
> That isn't something I've tested; but I can check if it's useful.

If it gets rid of a pointless test and symbol, I think it's useful, so
that would be nice. :)

>> Is it possible to build GCC with no "no stack protector" support? Do
>> we need to support any compilers that would choke on the
>> -fno-stack-protector flag itself?
>>
>> If we can reasonably assume that passing -fno-stack-protector is safe,
>> then CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE isn't needed.
>
> Well, there are two situations:
>
> - does the user want to build _without_ stack protector? (which is
> something some people want to do, no matter what I think of it)
>
> - did _AUTO discover that stack protector output is broken?
>
> In both cases, we need to pass -fno-stack-protector in case the distro
> compiler was built with stack protector enabled by default.

Yup, that's already the way it would work. Currently, there's also a
test for whether the compiler supports -fno-stack-protector. It's that
one that I suspect we might be able to get rid of.

Cheers,
Ulf "should merge replies"