linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RE-SUBMIT] Default setting of the ARM

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]

Message-ID: <4AE82D17.6040900@evidence.eu.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:37:59 +0100
From:	Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RE-SUBMIT] Default setting of the ARM_UNWIND option

Catalin Marinas ha scritto:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 09:27 +0100, Claudio Scordino wrote:
>   
>> My ARM board hanged at the initial "Calibrating delay loop" message.
>>
>> After some inspection, I found out the problem to be with commit
>> adf8b37bafc1495393201a2ae4235846371870d0. This commit introduces stack
>> unwinding for ARM, and set it enabled by default. However, it seems to
>> not work with buggy or not-EABI compilers.
>>
>> My suggestion is to keep the feature (which is fine) but change the
>> default setting of the option (see the attached patch).
>>     
>
> The option still depends on EXPERIMENTAL, so you get ARM_UNWIND on when
> enabling that.
>
> I'm more in favour of a #warning on #error in the unwind.c file based on
> the compiler version rather than not having it on by default. The reason
> is that people reported performance improvements when compiling the
> kernel without frame pointers.
>   

[Sorry, I sent the wrong patch... This is the new one.]

This solution is fine too (even if I still think that changing the
default setting is better).

Please, consider the patch in attachment: is it like you would have it ?

BTW, do we have any list of buggy or not-EABI versions of the gcc compiler ?

Many thanks,

             Claudio



View attachment "0001-Some-warnings-when-compiling-ARM-unwind-support-with.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1276 bytes)