lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 11/21] stack-protector: test compiler capability in Kconfig and drop AUTO mode
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> Move the test for -fstack-protector(-strong) option to Kconfig.
>
> If the compiler does not support the option, the corresponding menu
> is automatically hidden. If _STRONG is not supported, it will fall
> back to _REGULAR. If _REGULAR is not supported, it will be disabled.
> This means, _AUTO is implicitly handled by the dependency solver of
> Kconfig, hence removed.
>
> I also turned the 'choice' into only two boolean symbols. The use of
> 'choice' is not a good idea here, because all of all{yes,mod,no}config
> would choose the first visible value, while we want allnoconfig to
> disable as many features as possible.
>
> X86 has additional shell scripts in case the compiler supports the
> option, but generates broken code. I added CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR
> to test this. I had to add -m32 to gcc-x86_32-has-stack-protector.sh
> to make it work correctly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>

This looks really good. Notes below...

> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Describe $(cc-option ...) directly in depends on context
>
> Makefile | 93 ++-----------------------------
> arch/Kconfig | 29 +++-------
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 8 ++-
> scripts/gcc-x86_32-has-stack-protector.sh | 7 +--
> scripts/gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh | 5 --
> 5 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 120 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 5c395ed..5cadffa 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -675,55 +675,11 @@ ifneq ($(CONFIG_FRAME_WARN),0)
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wframe-larger-than=${CONFIG_FRAME_WARN})
> endif
>
> -# This selects the stack protector compiler flag. Testing it is delayed
> -# until after .config has been reprocessed, in the prepare-compiler-check
> -# target.
> -ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO
> - stackp-flag := $(call cc-option,-fstack-protector-strong,$(call cc-option,-fstack-protector))
> - stackp-name := AUTO
> -else
> -ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR
> - stackp-flag := -fstack-protector
> - stackp-name := REGULAR
> -else
> -ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
> - stackp-flag := -fstack-protector-strong
> - stackp-name := STRONG
> -else
> - # If either there is no stack protector for this architecture or
> - # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE is selected, we're done, and $(stackp-name)
> - # is empty, skipping all remaining stack protector tests.
> - #
> - # Force off for distro compilers that enable stack protector by default.
> - KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector)
> -endif
> -endif
> -endif
> -# Find arch-specific stack protector compiler sanity-checking script.
> -ifdef stackp-name
> -ifneq ($(stackp-flag),)
> - stackp-path := $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-$(SRCARCH)_$(BITS)-has-stack-protector.sh
> - stackp-check := $(wildcard $(stackp-path))
> - # If the wildcard test matches a test script, run it to check functionality.
> - ifdef stackp-check
> - ifneq ($(shell $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(stackp-check) $(CC) $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(biarch)),y)
> - stackp-broken := y
> - endif
> - endif
> - ifndef stackp-broken
> - # If the stack protector is functional, enable code that depends on it.
> - KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += -DCONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> - # Either we've already detected the flag (for AUTO) or we'll fail the
> - # build in the prepare-compiler-check rule (for specific flag).
> - KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(stackp-flag)
> - else
> - # We have to make sure stack protector is unconditionally disabled if
> - # the compiler is broken (in case we're going to continue the build in
> - # AUTO mode).

Let's keep this comment (slightly rewritten) since the reason for
setting this flag isn't obvious.

> - KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector)
> - endif
> -endif
> -endif
> +stackp-flags-y := -fno-stack-protector

This is a (minor?) regression in my testing. Making this unconditional
may break for a compiler built without stack-protector. It should be
rare, but it's technically possible. Perhaps:

stackp-flags-y := ($call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector)

> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR) := -fstack-protector
> +stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG) := -fstack-protector-strong
> +
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(stackp-flags-y)
> [...]
> diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig
> index 8e0d665..b42378d 100644
> --- a/arch/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/Kconfig
> @@ -535,13 +535,13 @@ config HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> bool
> help
> An arch should select this symbol if:
> - - its compiler supports the -fstack-protector option

Please leave this note: it's still valid. An arch must still have
compiler support for this to be sensible.

> - it has implemented a stack canary (e.g. __stack_chk_guard)
> [...]

Otherwise, this tests well for me. Nicely done!

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-28 13:19    [W:0.415 / U:0.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site