linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Variable size jump

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191007124509.72f9fd26@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:45:09 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        hjl.tools@...il.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Variable size jump_label support

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 18:13:02 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:17:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Actually, even back then I said that it would be best to merge all the
> > tools into one (I just didn't have the time to implement it), and then
> > we could pull this off. I have one of my developers working to merge
> > record-mcount into objtool now (there's been some patches floating
> > around).  
> 
> Right, but while working on this I discovered GCC's -mrecord-mcount (and
> the kernel using this), so how much do we really still need the
> record-mcount tool?

That only works for some archs, not all of them. At least not yet that
I'm aware of.

> 
> Do we really only need the tool for the little hole between gcc-4.6
> (minimal supported GCC version) and gcc-5 (when -mrecord-mcount was
> introduced) ?

Again, it's for more than just x86 ;-)

-- Steve