From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f180.google.com (mail-pg1-f180.google.com [209.85.215.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FCC472 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 19:15:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f180.google.com with SMTP id s136so20155537pgs.4 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:15:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=i22CGOfMdCgEzNofkN2ujFXF/VRH37ibkrOAmDeTGJk=; b=JpcmTmu47LLgTalrcwHRfbvnurUdEUIPsEFm+gDXyWzHYc7ndXQEKbhgm4vo91rqt1 TMNIN7Qa9dCpB6e3ViS2EZ+qPxoTjr6dHBkYXKic25otGOFt5rTop+eIp8mnFDNRwpGt aje3upgjKjBAz6T1loijjMNJQqfNOXXET2wlA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=i22CGOfMdCgEzNofkN2ujFXF/VRH37ibkrOAmDeTGJk=; b=fceCaYlCrmP15Tbe2xMUsDMGQhqI5nEMpdFWgb6SriQd8Hal+2MPbt4Zgm3Xp9IKlj MPyoQpe7mZXhnW4LLyeCHAViF8130igEb59Z0FCsNoUWpalrL4km9d00Jyv/e7RcdlO7 xpMIvBSenWV+ctRH/nenPYTO8jXizejrUHbk58XdnYeqmdcyrN1IGMJwZCxhbXfRr6w/ DIb6am8vnB7x8I5xIHKw+gNVdLfckdEqmz0lX0/t6tzALefY1g2YfR6aF+XYp4PbZ2r9 oo+sD+e2iufSmo8GCW7AVJwcPbUkRr3I7ddrgtr18bZbkKCetHmaviQUY/ZOmhS+Ssll VJgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531r11ZxqN8WS1OEEM4kujRRGJH6ivkx9MiANxM8GVpLqXK1m3TT xJ2gPZCu1x4BIhGFwuL0eJ68/wkPb7Mmkg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwlN6e6EukdLBE/1sEfEDDBaNtAFd50dDayRvjCFtYq+pdfXTDmzg6uAqxABX6av/5tLtlX3w== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:94a8:0:b0:44c:f3e0:81fb with SMTP id a8-20020aa794a8000000b0044cf3e081fbmr797733pfl.6.1634757309155; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p12sm3981100pfh.52.2021.10.20.12.15.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:15:08 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Nathan Chancellor Cc: Masahiro Yamada , Michal Marek , Nick Desaulniers , Jonathan Corbet , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, Dan Li , ardb@kernel.org, ojeda@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc-plugins: Explicitly document purpose and deprecation schedule Message-ID: <202110201212.43DC4A24@keescook> References: <20211020173554.38122-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20211020173554.38122-2-keescook@chromium.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:45:43AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:35:53AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > GCC plugins should only exist when some compiler feature needs to be > > proven but does not exist in either GCC nor Clang. For example, if a > > desired feature is already in Clang, it should be added to GCC upstream. > > Document this explicitly. > > > > Additionally, mark the plugins with matching upstream GCC features as > > removable past their respective GCC versions. > > > > Cc: Masahiro Yamada > > Cc: Michal Marek > > Cc: Nick Desaulniers > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet > > Cc: James Morris > > Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" > > Cc: Nathan Chancellor > > Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook > > Seems reasonable to me. > > Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor Thanks! > > One comment below. > > > --- > > Documentation/kbuild/gcc-plugins.rst | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > scripts/gcc-plugins/Kconfig | 4 ++-- > > security/Kconfig.hardening | 9 ++++++--- > > 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/kbuild/gcc-plugins.rst b/Documentation/kbuild/gcc-plugins.rst > > index 3349966f213d..4b28c7a4032f 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/kbuild/gcc-plugins.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/kbuild/gcc-plugins.rst > > @@ -32,6 +32,32 @@ This infrastructure was ported from grsecurity [6]_ and PaX [7]_. > > .. [7] https://pax.grsecurity.net/ > > > > > > +Purpose > > +======= > > + > > +GCC plugins are designed to provide a place to experiment with potential > > +compiler features that are neither in GCC nor Clang upstream. Once > > +their utility is proven, the goal is to upstream the feature into GCC > > +(and Clang), and then to finally remove them from the kernel once the > > +feature is available in all supported versions of GCC. > > + > > +Specifically, new plugins should implement only features that have no > > +upstream compiler support (in either GCC or Clang). > > + > > +When a feature exists in Clang but not GCC, effort should be made to > > +bring the feature to upstream GCC (rather than just as a kernel-specific > > +GCC plugin), so the entire ecosystem can benefit from it. > > + > > +Similarly, even if a feature provided by a GCC plugin does *not* exist > > +in Clang, but the feature is proven to be useful, effort should be spent > > +to upstream the feature to GCC (and Clang). > > + > > +After a feature is available in upstream GCC, the plugin will be made > > +unbuildable for the corresponding GCC version (and later). Once all > > +kernel-supported versions of GCC provide the feature, the plugin will > > +be removed from the kernel. > > + > > + > > Files > > ===== > > > > diff --git a/scripts/gcc-plugins/Kconfig b/scripts/gcc-plugins/Kconfig > > index ab9eb4cbe33a..3f5d3580ec06 100644 > > --- a/scripts/gcc-plugins/Kconfig > > +++ b/scripts/gcc-plugins/Kconfig > > @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ config GCC_PLUGIN_CYC_COMPLEXITY > > > > config GCC_PLUGIN_SANCOV > > bool > > + # Plugin can be removed once the kernel only supports GCC 6.1.0+ > > + depends on !CC_HAS_SANCOV_TRACE_PC > > This symbol is not user selectable and the one place that does select it > only does so when !CC_HAS_SANCOV_TRACE_PC so this seems pointless to me. > > Keep the comment, ditch the depends? I had a similar thought, and in the end, I decided I wanted to always enforce the GCC feature check through a depends, with a comment about the expected version. I want to make sure we don't use plugins if an upstream feature is already available. It happens that SANCOV was effectively the first to do this, but it did so on the other side and I wanted it repeated here so it was "self contained". -Kees -- Kees Cook