On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Kristina, > > On 05/10/18 09:47, Kristina Martsenko wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile >> index 106039d25e2f..dbcd43ea99d8 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile >> @@ -56,6 +56,10 @@ KBUILD_AFLAGS += $(lseinstr) $(brokengasinst) >> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mabi=lp64) >> KBUILD_AFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mabi=lp64) >> >> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM64_PTR_AUTH),y) >> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += -msign-return-address=all >> +endif > > Should not it be done via cc-option so old toolchains keep working [1]? > > [1] > $ aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc --version > aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Linaro GCC 2014.11) 4.9.3 20141031 (prerelease) > Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > $ aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc -msign-return-address=all > aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-msign-return-address=all' > ... I would like to see CONFIG_ARM64_PTR_AUTH testing for compiler support via Kconfig (as stack-protector does). This would allow developers to only see the option if it was available (i.e. no "downgrade" happens if the compiler is missing support). Using cc-option runs the risk of building a kernel with CONFIG_ARM64_PTR_AUTH set, but _not_ actually using ptr auth. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
