From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:39909 "EHLO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755168AbcETGXJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2016 02:23:09 -0400 Received: from localhost by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 20 May 2016 16:23:06 +1000 Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v8 2/4] GCC plugin infrastructure References: <20160513015456.01415979f20a68eb7d2d9290@gmail.com> <20160518123327.9018f73af78a47b4456b2027@gmail.com> <1463638931.10451.10.camel@ellerman.id.au> <573D782D.10392.75A275C@pageexec.freemail.hu> From: Andrew Donnellan Message-ID: <573EAD0B.7090005@au1.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 16:22:03 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <573D782D.10392.75A275C@pageexec.freemail.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: pageexec@freemail.hu, Emese Revfy , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Michael Ellerman Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, spender@grsecurity.net, mmarek@suse.com, keescook@chromium.org, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, fengguang.wu@intel.com, dvyukov@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david.brown@linaro.org, yamada.masahiro@socionext.com, linuxppc-dev , Daniel Axtens On 19/05/16 18:24, PaX Team wrote: > the earlier plugin capable gcc versions used to install gcc headers in a somewhat > ad-hoc manner resulting in compile time breakage for plugins and since some of > those potentially missing headers are target specific, each target arch should > be verified before enabling plugin support on them. things have much improved with > gcc 5 (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176) though there's still > an occasional missing header but with wider use of plugins they will hopefully be > discovered earlier now. perhaps linux-arch should be cc'ed on the plugin infrastructure > so that arch maintainers are aware of this? Upon further testing it does seem we've got header issues as well as hitting a segfault on 4.7.0. Looking into it further... -- Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com IBM Australia Limited