[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202006261312.560B045E@keescook>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:13:18 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kbuild: remove cc-option test of -fno-stack-protector
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:09:37PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:00 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> wrote:
> > CFLAGS_NO_HARDENING := $(call cc-option, -fno-PIC,) $(call cc-option, -fno-pic,) \
> > - $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector,) \
> > - $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector-all,)
> > + -fno-stack-protector $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector-all)
>
> Just curious, looks like we could do the same for
> `-fno-stack-protector-all`, here or tree-wide, right? Wait, what
> compiler recognizes -fno-stack-protector-all?
> https://godbolt.org/z/QFQKE_
That is from ancient times, IIRC. -fno-stack-protector should be
sufficient.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists