From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3v7WwW3wx6zDqDm for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:17:15 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 22:17:02 -0600 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Balbir Singh Cc: Michael Ellerman , Jan Stancek , Herton Krzesinski , Artem Savkov , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [bug] stack protector panics on v4.10-rc1+ Message-ID: <20170125041702.GM30284@gate.crashing.org> References: <627000186.495731.1485210132000.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <1761847918.511957.1485216600665.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20170124010421.GI30284@gate.crashing.org> <8737g9azuj.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <87ziih9jzv.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20170125035453.GA12855@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170125035453.GA12855@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 09:24:53AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > So my inclination is to revert the powerpc stack protector code for > > 4.10, and we can try again for 4.11 or 12. > > That makes sense. We then wait for the right gcc version? I guess we also > push for per-task gaurd value as opposed to a global one? Global value will work (with GCC 7) as-is. Per-task will require some kernel work, but yeah you want it, that is why the options for that exist ;-) You don't have to revert the current stack protector code; just condition it on the relevant GCC flags (you will need to do that later anyway). Segher