linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME

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:	Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:39:07 -0800
From:	"Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@...aro.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME_POINTER kconfig option

On 11/6/2015 9:35 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:23:38AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
>> On 11/6/2015 8:25 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> However, the patch would allow one to
>>> disable FRAME_POINTERS (not sure it has any effect on the aarch64 gcc
>>> though).
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Actually, FRAME_POINTER could be disabled regardless of the
>> patch.
>
> In which case I suggest that we always select it just as a clearer
> statement that the feature cannot be disabled (and you never know what
> the compiler people decide to do in the future).

Do you mean select FRAME_POINTER in ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS?

Yes, we could, but this may cause other architectures which select 
ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS to have FRAME_POINTER selected too.

Or we could do:

select FRAME_POINTER is ARM64

Thanks,
Yang

>

--
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/