linux-kernel - Re: Is LTO_REFERENCE_INITCALL() still needed?

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, 24 Jun 2016 14:07:53 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: Is LTO_REFERENCE_INITCALL() still needed?

> But nothing quite obviously setting these upstream. I'm probably just
> missing something obvious though. Either way I figured now would be a
> good time to ask as I have other code that would use this, the linker
> table stuff I've been working. If we can avoid propagating more use of
> LTO_REFERENCE_INITCALL() then great. If we still need it its probably
> good to document this a bit more as can't see anything super clear.

It was a work around for a gcc 4.7 LTO problem. I guess it could be
dropped by now.

Yes I've been slow in submitting the LTO patches, even though they
have a quite active out of tree user base. Will try to do better.

-Andi