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  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:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:15:48 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <>
Cc:     Behan Webster <>,
        Jan-Simon Möller <>,
        Mark Charlebois <>,
        Greg Hackmann <>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <>,
        Chris Fries <>,
        Michal Marek <>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Set KBUILD_CFLAGS before incl. arch Makefile

2017-11-08 2:37 GMT+09:00 Nick Desaulniers <>:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Masahiro Yamada
> <> wrote:
>> ld-option is only used for arch/{arm64,powerpc}/Makefile
>> arch/arm64/Makefile:  ifeq ($(call ld-option, --fix-cortex-a53-843419),)
>> arch/powerpc/Makefile:LDFLAGS_vmlinux += $(call
>> ld-option,--orphan-handling=warn)
>> I think this patch makes sense when it comes along with
> Good point.
>> but, it is now being blocked by 0-day bot
>> due to a x86 problem.
> Looks like that is now resolved (unless 0-day bot strikes again).
>> The location of CLANG_GCC_TC define
>> only matters after your patch is applied, right?
> By "your patch" referring to the 0-day bot thread, yes.
>> Did my request for v2 break anything?
> Nothing immediately obvious, and no regressions.  It just made this
> patch necessary (along with my previous one) for correctly cross
> compiling with clang for arm64 and powerpc as you point out.
>> One more thing: this patch does not apply to kbuild tree.
> I absolutely will rebase it on your tree and send a v2.  Just to help
> me understand the contribution model better: none of my other patches
> have yet been requested against any trees other than Linus'.  Is this
> because of where we are in the release cycle, or that a lot of kbuild
> code has changed, or what?

Generally speaking,
a preferred way is to base patches on the subsystem tree.

Kernel developers are supposed to do their development on linux-next,
but, in reality, many people work on Linus' tree since it is more stable and
git history is fast-forward.

In many cases, patches based on Linus' tree can apply to sub-systems as well.

I am happy to fix-up a conflict locally
as long as it is trivial, and there is no other reason for re-spin.

Unfortunately, Kbuild tree changed the top-level Makefile a lot in
this development cycle.

If your patch does not apply cleanly, I do not know which context you
are moving the code to.
Also, I found suspicious description in the commit log.

That's why.

Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Powered by blists - more mailing lists