linux-kernel - Re: Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation

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: <c834d3ed-3da3-e2b5-7f4b-9e36bfcb388b@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:00:54 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...marydata.com>
Subject: Re: Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation

> Why would you compile the kernel without optimization?

Can another reason be occasionally still relevant?

Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing
could be omitted?


> There's many places in the kernel that WILL NOT BUILD without optimization.

Would you like to keep the software situation in this way?


> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
> and the kernel build will break otherwise.

* Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?

* How do you think about to improve the error handling there?

Regards,
Markus