On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:22 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:37:38PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:25 PM Nathan Chancellor > > > <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I believe these issues are one in the same. I did a reverse bisect with > > > > Arnd's test case and converged on George's first patch: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2dd17ff08165e6118e70f00e22b2c36d2d4e0a9a > > > > > > > > I think that in lieu of this patch, we should have that patch and its > > > > follow-up fix merged into 10.0.1. > > > > > > If this is fixed in 10.0.1, do we even need to patch the kernel at > > > all? Or can we just leave it be, considering most organizations using > > > clang know what they're getting into? I'd personally prefer the > > > latter, so that we don't clutter things. > > > > I agree: I'd rather this was fixed in 10.0.1 (but if we do want a > > kernel-side work-around for 10.0.0, I would suggest doing the version > > check in the Kconfig for FORTIFY_SOURCE instead of in the Makefile, > > as that's where these things are supposed to live these days). > > Indeed this belongs in the Makefile. I can send a patch adjusting er, Kconfig, is what I meant to type.
