From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/boot/compressed/64: Define __force_order only when CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE is unset
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:34:07 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201912301033.84517BA05@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0rwQ6jyibZJ85N32UrrhBhyhesO24_6-66F07JMFYz+A@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 01:12:31PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:08 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 02:25:02PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:10 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 07:18:13AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > > > Since arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile overrides global CFLAGS it loses
> > > > > -fno-common option which would have caught this
> > > >
> > > > If this doesn't cause any visible problems, why bother?
> > > >
> > >
> > > it does break builds with gcc trunk as of now e.g.
> > >
> > > > Hopefully, we will be able to drop it altogether once we ditch GCC 4.X
> > > > support.
> > > >
> > >
> > > gcc10 is switching defaults to -fno-common so we need to solve this one way or
> > > other, I am not sure if gcc 4.x will be dropped before gcc10 release
> > > which would be
> > > in mid of 2020
> >
> > Okay, it makes sense then. Please include this info into the commit
> > message.
> >
> > Also, I wounder if it would be cleaner to define both of them as __weak?
>
> Or maybe make the #ifdef check for gcc < 5 instead of checking for
> CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE? That way it will be found by whoever
> cleans up the code when we increase the minimum compiler
> version to one that doesn't require the hack.
I agree: that seems a better way to do this.
--
Kees Cook
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-30 18:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-21 15:18 [PATCH] x86/boot/compressed/64: Define __force_order only when CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE is unset Khem Raj
2019-12-23 17:10 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-12-23 22:25 ` Khem Raj
2019-12-23 23:08 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-12-30 12:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-12-30 18:34 ` Kees Cook [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201912301033.84517BA05@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=raj.khem@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox