On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:20:09PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > So I get an allergic reaction everytime we wag the dog - i.e., fix the > code because some tool or option can't handle it even if it is > a perfectly fine code. In that case it is an unused symbol. > > And frankly, I'd prefer the silly warning to denote that fortify doesn't > need to do any checking there vs shutting it up just because. If we want to declare that x86 boot will never perform string handling on strings with unknown lengths, we could just delete the boot/ implementation of __fortify_panic(), and make it a hard failure if such cases are introduced in the future. This hasn't been a particularly friendly solution in the past, though, as the fortify routines do tend to grow additional coverage over time, so there may be future cases that do trip the runtime checking... -- Kees Cook
