On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Gianluca Borello <g.bore...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> good catch!
>> I wonder why sched.h is using this flag insead of relying on #defines from 
>> autoconf.h
>> It could have been using CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
>> instead of CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR, no ?
> Thanks for your reply Alexei. I think switching to
> HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR could indeed solve this particular BPF issue in
> a cleaner way (I tested it), at the cost of having that struct member
> always present for the supported architectures even if the stack
> protector is actually disabled (e.g. CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y).
> Not sure if this could be frowned upon by someone considering how
> critical task_struct is, but on the other hand is really just 8 bytes.

That structure is huge, and I think it's proper to leave this as is.

Adding KBUILD_CPPFLAGS (for now) seems like the right way to go;
though in the future stack protector will be changed around again (to
be purely Kconfig again). There are a number of issues with its logic
in detecting and enabling, and another draft at solving it is under


Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Reply via email to