From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 3B570E00ABE; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, * medium trust * [198.47.23.248 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com (lelv0143.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.248]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA6CE00A0C for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 12:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dlelxv90.itg.ti.com ([172.17.2.17]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w9HJbHnE064465; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:17 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1539805037; bh=pVuNghDzgPu4Ge2QFOiJQirTO3I67LiDEOqG3qHAumc=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=nLqhZHHXsM4QfGN8EqLij8XGFoz3DUAs9/woSwO7yRUA3ABSQVJ10MtyT+pFwaA5y aTiaSPH9C03KUxbInDJjlm/Dx0zxIyXFGnCJHIJF7WUA11QMzZMsaPqhWCOW1pFhKE vfBVP7H6SylqRIIEpllr0XIBrr5nT6PKfchWyZhY= Received: from DLEE111.ent.ti.com (dlee111.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.22]) by dlelxv90.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w9HJbHtZ023286; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:17 -0500 Received: from DLEE109.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.41) by DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:17 -0500 Received: from dlep33.itg.ti.com (157.170.170.75) by DLEE109.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1466.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dlep33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w9HJbGji028219; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:37:16 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: Khem Raj Message-ID: <20181017193716.GH4031@beryl> References: <20181016182859.GI14250@beryl> <20181016183828.GK14250@beryl> <20181016185925.GO1032@bill-the-cat> <9e7016817d464dd8bfb1210b8e9e6cf5@SOC-EX01V.e01.socionext.com> <20181017112615.GT1032@bill-the-cat> <20181017192501.GG4031@beryl> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org, Tom Rini , Masahiro Yamada Subject: Re: [PATCH] beaglebone.conf: temporarily use generic am335x_evm_config for U-boot X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:37:20 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:27:19PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > > > Yeah I saw that but this patch is not their in 2018.01 release that TI > > > > fork > > > > > is based on regardless I backported this patch to this version it did not > > > > > bring the size below mark > > > > > I think it’s because we are using hardened toolchain and that enalbles > > > > > extra options to enable pie and ssp since these options get added to CC > > > > > they get passed into uboot straight > > > > > > > > > > I think we should just disable security flags for u boot in OE and may be > > > > > uboot make system should append fno-pie fno-stack-protector to nullify > > > > > these options > > > > > > > > OK, do you want to submit a patch for that or should I do one and just > > > > Suggested-by you? Thanks! > > > > > > > > > This would not be acceptable change since it changes how we build gcc > > > itself secondly it does not happen for master uboot > > > > > > However if this works then we need to understand why it increas e the size > > > > Even if this change is not acceptable upstream, I would prefer it locally in > > meta-ti recipe, instead of disabling more features to free up 5-6KB in SPL. > > this is a distro level change. meta-ti is not appropriate place to decide that Are we talking about passing fno-pie and fno-stack-protector to U-boot build that you suggested above? That is what I'm referring here. It can be BBB specific patch. That is until we figure out why it grows code so much... -- Denys