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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:07:59 +0900 From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>, Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, Adrian Reber <adrian@...as.de>, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>, Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Makefile: lld: tell clang to use lld On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:08 AM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:59 AM Masahiro Yamada > <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:42 AM <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote: > > > > > > This is needed because clang doesn't select which linker to use based on > > > $LD but rather -fuse-ld=lld. This is problematic especially for > > > cc-ldoption, which checks for linker flag support via invoking the > > > compiler, rather than the linker. > > > > > > Sorry, please explain what kind of problem > > this patch solves. > > > > > > > > [1] $(LD) is used to link vmlinux, modules, etc. > > > > [2] $(CC) is used to link vdso, etc. > > and -fuse-ld= selects which linker is invoked from $(CC) > > It solves case 2. > > > > > > > Is it a problem to use a different > > type of linker for [1] and [2] ? > > Ideally, no, but I can think of at least one case where it might be > problematic to mix linkers like that: > You might be mixing linker flags added via ld-option from one linker > that aren't actually supported by the other linker. You can do this only when you are sure that the _exactly_ same linker is used. In my understanding, -fuse-ld=lld does not guarantee it. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists