linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: Change the location of DISCARDS

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: <20201112131740.GN29613@gaia>
Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:17:40 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     tangyouling <tangyouling@...ngson.cn>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, ardb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Change the location of DISCARDS

On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 09:07:38AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 09:06:42AM +0800, tangyouling wrote:
> > In the include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h:978, the description is as follows:
> > DISCARDS must be the last of output section definitions so that such archs
> > put those in earlier section definitions.
> 
> Sure, I see that text, but I don't get why it matters. It would be nice to
> have some rationale as to what could go wrong if they aren't at the end,
> so we can improve that comment and avoid the inevitable regression in the
> future when things get shuffled around.

Maybe on other architectures or some old toolchains made a difference in
the resulting binary image size. It doesn't seem to be the case for
arm64.

-- 
Catalin