linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] Makefile, x86, LLVM: disable unsupported optimization flags

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:   Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:54:57 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>
Cc:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Makefile, x86, LLVM: disable unsupported optimization flags

Hi.


2017-04-06 4:11 GMT+09:00 Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>:
> It "works" for the cases that I currently care about but I have to say
> that I am uneasy about adding -Werror to the cc-option test in this
> way.
>
> Suppose that one of the *other* flags that is implicitly passed to the
> compiler by cc-option - eg something that was explicitly specified in
> $(KBUILD_CFLAGS) - triggers a warning. In that case all calls to
> cc-option will silently fail because of the -Werror and valid options
> will not be detected correctly.

Theoretically, options explicitly specified in KBUILD_CFLAGS
should be always valid.
Options that may not be supported in some cases
should be wrapped with $(call cc-option ).



> If everyone is OK with that because "it shouldn't normally ever
> happen" then that is fine, but if does result in a subtle change from
> existing behavior (and a trap that I almost immediately fell into
> after applying a similar patch).

There is a rare case where a particular combination fails
(such as the conflict between -pg and -ffunction-sections
as reported in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9624573/).

In a such case, we may end up with swapping the order,
but this should not happen quite often.



> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> wrote:
>> Hi Masahiro,
>>
>> El Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:26AM +0900 Masahiro Yamada ha dit:
>>
>>> 2017-03-17 9:15 GMT+09:00 Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>:
>>> > Unfortunately, while clang generates a warning about these flags
>>> > being unsupported it still exits with a status of 0 so we have
>>> > to explicitly disable them instead of just using a cc-option check.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Instead, does the following work for you?
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9657285/
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer, I was about to give this change (or rather its
>> ancestor) a rework myself :)
>>
>>> You need to use
>>> $(call cc-option, ...)
>>> for -falign-jumps=1 and -falign-loops=1
>>
>> I can confirm that this works.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Matthias
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada