linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/boot/compressed/64: Define __force_order only when CONFIG_RANDOMIZE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191223230857.eafab52y5erfmgab@box>
Date:   Tue, 24 Dec 2019 02:08:57 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Khem Raj <raj.khem@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/boot/compressed/64: Define __force_order only when
 CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE is unset

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 02:25:02PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:10 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 07:18:13AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > Since arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile overrides global CFLAGS it loses
> > > -fno-common option which would have caught this
> >
> > If this doesn't cause any visible problems, why bother?
> >
> 
> it does break builds with gcc trunk as of now e.g.
> 
> > Hopefully, we will be able to drop it altogether once we ditch GCC 4.X
> > support.
> >
> 
> gcc10 is switching defaults to -fno-common so we need to solve this one way or
> other, I am not sure if gcc 4.x will be dropped before gcc10 release
> which would be
> in mid of 2020

Okay, it makes sense then. Please include this info into the commit
message.

Also, I wounder if it would be cleaner to define both of them as __weak?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov