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 07:48:06 +0300
From:   Maxim Kuvyrkov <>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <>
Cc:     Yury Norov <>,
        LKML <>,,
        Greg Hackmann <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Alex Matveev <>,
        Andi Kleen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] arm64: fix mrs_s/msr_s macros for clang LTO

> On Nov 9, 2017, at 3:02 AM, Andi Kleen <> wrote:
>> There's the series from Andi Kleen that enables LTO for Linux on x86:
>> It has solved many problems you also try to solve, and some patches
>> are looking very similar. 
>> At now we have different patchsets for gcc and clang, and it would be
>> better to have them together. One thing I'm worried is that you introduce
>> CONFIG_CLANG_LTO and use it for all cases, including that where more
>> generic CONFIG_LTO should be used.
> Yes would be good to merge the two. I've been looking at updating
> my old one.
> I don't cover any ARM code, but lots of generic code. My patches
> also worked on MIPS at least.
> There's also older patches to enable single-pass-linking for kallsyms,
> which is extremly useful for LTO build performance.

[Yury, thanks for the CC:]

Chiming in from the toolchain side, Linaro's Toolchain team will try to help with any GCC or Clang issues that are exposed by building kernel with LTO on arm64 / arm.

Regarding CONFIG_* options, I would expect most of the configuration changes to be equally valid for both GCC's and Clang's LTO support.  Sami, I don't think it's fair to ask you to support both Clang and GCC in your patchset, but, where changes are obviously toolchain-agnostic, could you use CONFIG_LTO?  And use CONFIG_LTO_CLANG for Clang-specific parts?

This way we will be able to avoid most of the refactoring when adding support for GCC's LTO.

Thank you,

Maxim Kuvyrkov

Powered by blists - more mailing lists