linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 36/50] tools/perf/build: Speed up auto-detection

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]

Message-ID: <20131007215704.GD2900@krava.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Oct 2013 23:57:05 +0200
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 36/50] tools/perf/build: Speed up auto-detection

On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:56:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

SNIP

> -FEATURE_TESTS =				\
> -	hello				\
> -	stackprotector-all		\
> -	stackprotector			\
> -	volatile-register-var		\
> +#
> +# Note that this is not a complete list of all feature tests, just
> +# those that are typically built on a fully configured system.
> +#
> +# [ Feature tests not mentioned here have to be built explicitly in
> +#   the rule that uses them - an example for that is the 'bionic'
> +#   feature check. ]
> +#
> +CORE_FEATURE_TESTS =			\
> +	backtrace			\
> +	dwarf				\
>  	fortify-source			\
> -	bionic				\
> -	libelf				\
>  	glibc				\
> -	dwarf				\
> -	libelf-mmap			\
> -	libelf-getphdrnum		\
> -	libunwind			\
> -	libaudit			\
> -	libslang			\
>  	gtk2				\
>  	gtk2-infobar			\
> +	libaudit			\
> +	libbfd				\
> +	libelf				\
> +	libelf-getphdrnum		\
> +	libelf-mmap			\
> +	libnuma				\
>  	libperl				\
>  	libpython			\
>  	libpython-version		\
> -	libbfd				\
> +	libslang			\
> +	libunwind			\
>  	on-exit				\
> -	backtrace			\
> -	libnuma
> +	stackprotector-all		\

missing stackprotector?

I guess that various gcc version could support either
of them or both.. so we need to check for both

looks like -fstack-protector-all overloads -fstack-protector
but no harm to have them both added probably ;-)

jirka
--
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/