[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200417104126.GX20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:41:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>,
Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 09:57:39AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Yeah, Peter and I have been discussing something like the below
> yesterday. I don't like the additional exports too much but would
> disable stack protector only for the one function...
I did do promise you bike-shedding... so here goes :-)
> -obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += smpboot.o
> +
> +nostackprot := $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector)
> +CFLAGS_smpboot_aux.o := $(nostackprot)
> +
> +smpboot_all-y := smpboot.o smpboot_aux.o
So how about we call that file: smpboot_nostack.c or, since it only has
the one function in: start_secondary.c ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists