[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=PcTVZaMCtY7Wy-OEi7Dd1M4hVz8mpJCQR3M+dVROdmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:57:53 -0800
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: 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>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] arm64: keep .altinstructions and .altinstr_replacement
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> wrote:
> Make sure the linker doesn't remove .altinstructions or
> .altinstr_replacement when CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION is
> enabled.
This sounds like a bug in the original implementation of
CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION? If so, this can likely get
merged regardless of the rest of the patchset, ie. gold support.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists