linux-kernel - Re: PATCH: Add --size-check=[error|warning]

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:35:24 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	sedat.dilek@...il.com, Alan Modra <amodra@...pond.net.au>,
	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	binutils <binutils@...rceware.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Add --size-check=[error|warning]


* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:

> >>> On 14.03.11 at 12:02, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...glemail.com> wrote:
> > [1] Jan, what do you mean by "side-effects". Can you explain that a
> > bit more precisely?
> 
> The -B compiler option controls more than just finding "helper" binaries.
> 
> > [2] Where can someone set a "global behaviour" (hardcoded options) for
> > his/her assembler in the kernel's build-system (speaking of
> > "--size-check=[error|warning]")?
> 
> Nowhere, selecting behavior is possible only via the command line.
> 
> > [3] Can the kernel-buildsystem check for system's binutils/as version
> > and/or its features/options? If yes, where would that be and can you
> > offer a snippet for a solution?
> 
> Making the kernel build system check for certain newly introduced
> gas options would again require changes to the kernel sources,
> which is precisely what is impossible to do for past kernel releases
> (and bisection in particular).

Yes, and all the counter-arguments here continue to miss that very simple point. 
That point was made in the first post about this topic and it's still not 
acknowledged - let alone addressed.

This breakage is unnecessary and retroactively goes back 130,000 commits. A warning 
combined with not issuing the debug symbol would be just as fine and would still 
result in valid output.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/