linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (wakeup)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:07:10 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pavel@...e.cz,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 (wakeup)

On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:40:15PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 of February 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:58:06 -0800 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >>>> Yes, adding -m32 to the X86_32 config ccflags (as is done for the
> > >>>> X86_64 case) makes it build for me.  (like patch below)
> > >>>>
> > >>> It's wrong, though, because you can't assume a 32-bit compiler knows 
> > >>> about -m32.
> > >>>
> > >>> You need $(call cc-option,-m32).
> > >>
> > >> -cflags-$(CONFIG_X86_32) :=
> > >> +cflags-$(CONFIG_X86_32) := $(call cc-option, -m32)
> > >>  cflags-$(CONFIG_X86_64) := -m32
> > > 
> > > I think this works for both; that's what we do for arch/x86/boot.
> > 
> > OK, that makes sense.  I think I'll let Rafael complete it.
> 
> OK, so that would be the appended patch.
> 
> Still, since there are several fixes against the "move the wakeup code to C"
> patch, I'll probably fold them all into a new version of this patch and resend
> it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/Makefile |    3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/Makefile
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/Makefile
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/Makefile
> @@ -27,8 +27,6 @@ bootsrc		:= $(src)/../../../boot
>  # How to compile the 16-bit code.  Note we always compile for -march=i386,
>  # that way we can complain to the user if the CPU is insufficient.
>  # Compile with _SETUP since this is similar to the boot-time setup code.
> -cflags-$(CONFIG_X86_32) :=
> -cflags-$(CONFIG_X86_64) := -m32
>  KBUILD_CFLAGS	:= $(LINUXINCLUDE) -g -Os -D_SETUP -D_WAKEUP -D__KERNEL__ \
>  		   -I$(srctree)/$(bootsrc) \
>  		   $(cflags-y) \
> @@ -41,6 +39,7 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS	:= $(LINUXINCLUDE) -g -Os 
>  			$(call cc-option, -fno-unit-at-a-time)) \
>  		   $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector) \
>  		   $(call cc-option, -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2)
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= $(call cc-option, -m32)

For a 64 bit build we should error out if the compiler
fials to support -m32 (how unlikely that may be).
So I would prefer it unconditional for 64 bit.

But nit picking - I know.

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/