[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200317143914.GI2156@tucnak>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:39:14 +0100
From:   Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:36:02PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 07:03:03PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:54:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > So having a way to state "do not add stack canary checking to this
> > > particular function" would be optimal. And since you already have the
> > > "stack_protect" function attribute I figure adding a "no_stack_protect"
> > > one should be easy...
> > 
> > Easy, but a waste when GCC already has the optimize attribute that can
> > handle also ~450 other options that are per-function rather than per-TU.
> 
> Ok, Micha explained to me what you mean here and I did:
> 
> static void __attribute__((optimize("no-stack-protect"))) notrace start_secondary(void *unused)
> {
> 
> but it said
That is because the option is called -fno-stack-protector, so one needs to
use __attribute__((optimize("no-stack-protector")))
	Jakub
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
