From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932710AbYEFTt4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 15:49:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756907AbYEFTtn (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 15:49:43 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.21]:21234 "EHLO orsmga101.jf.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932123AbYEFTtl (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 15:49:41 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,445,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="278512446" Message-ID: <4820B64D.4000805@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 12:49:33 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Winchester CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: WARNING: at kernel/panic.c:375 __stack_chk_test+0x50/0x54() References: <4819078C.9080405@gmail.com> <48190844.5080804@linux.intel.com> <48190DBB.9020102@gmail.com> <20080430002727.00db8e63@linux.intel.com> <481A4636.8050209@gmail.com> <20080501043313.02205bbd@linux.intel.com> <481CF3B1.2020307@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <481CF3B1.2020307@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kevin Winchester wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> \ >>> Does that help? >> >> somewhat. If you still have your source tree, can you do >> >> make kernel/panic.s and send that file to me as well? >> (offlist is fine) >> > > I didn't have the source tree around, but I created the tree+config, and > here is what I get (I believe it is not too big for the list): > interesting; somehow gcc does NOT put stack-protector in place despite it being told so with -fstack-protector-all. # -fno-common -funit-at-a-time -fstack-protector -fstack-protector-all # -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -fno-omit-frame-pointer # -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -fverbose-asm -fstack-protector # -fstack-protector this is weird; something is adding ANOTHER -fstack-protector to the (effective) gcc flags.. which might be overriding the -fstack-protector-all setting. I wonder if this is a distro special ;(