[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 16:16:01 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch core/stackprotector] stackprotector: Fix build when
compiler lacks support
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> NAK. If you have selected CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG, the build
> the fail hard. Without this, it means you'll end up with kernels that
> build and show a stackprotector option in their config, which is
> false.
What we really really want to do is to have some way to add config
options based on shell scripts and compiler support. That would also
get rid of a lot of Makefile trickery etc.
Then we could just make CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG depend on
CC_SUPPORTS_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG or whatever.
Linus
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists