linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 18/18] arm64: select ARCH_SUPPORTS_LTO

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: <20171120193256.e6fnn2arwqc5wqkp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:32:56 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
        Pirama Arumuga Nainar <pirama@...gle.com>,
        Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 18/18] arm64: select ARCH_SUPPORTS_LTO_CLANG

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:05:55PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> Although the current direction of the C++ committee is to prefer
> that dependencies are explicitly "marked", this is not deemed to be
> acceptable for the kernel (in other words, everything is always considered
> "marked").

Yeah, that is an attitude not compatible with existing code. Much like
the proposal to allow temporary/wide stores on everything not explicitly
declared atomic. Such stuff instantly breaks all extant code that does
multi-threading with no recourse.