Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202203251443.9BBADFD98@keescook> <CAHk-=wjeGc-BjkDWTYkXzyQu-vf9EEujuT-6=U7Od0DvCUfb8w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjeGc-BjkDWTYkXzyQu-vf9EEujuT-6=U7Od0DvCUfb8w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 26 Mar 2022 12:40:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wid1da7CONOA4ia++vKe5pCFda6gwdafjFP4HXJQcjcsA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] FORTIFY_SOURCE updates for v5.18-rc1
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        George Burgess IV <gbiv@google.com>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 12:29 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Because if all the compiler issues and warnings have been sorted out,
> it sounds to me like the compile-time side could/should be done
> unconditionally if there are no runtime downsides.

.. or do the existing compiler warnings for the builtins already cover
all cases, and the only reason the fortify-source code has
compile-time warnings is that the option takes over the builtins?

So maybe there's no upside to the fortify-source code for that case?

              Linus