linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD

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:	Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:46:13 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD_IRQ say .text]

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 19:45 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 
> I've Cc'ed Ben and linuxppc-dev because I wonder if they're aware
> that several options (I got it from LATENCYTOP, but I think LOCKDEP
> and FTRACE and some others) are doing a "select FRAME_POINTER",
> which forces CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y on PowerPC, even though
> FRAME_POINTER is not an option offered on PowerPC.  The
> resulting kernels appear to run okay, but I was surprised.

Because the option just does nothing for us ? :-) We always have frame
pointers on powerpc except in some case for leaf functions. I don't know
if the option has any actual effect on the later, but I don't think we
have a case where doing either way would break things.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/