linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 21/29] objtool: Rename --duplicate to --lto

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

Message-ID: <20220226214802.4chmsrtstlerefmu@treble>
Date:   Sat, 26 Feb 2022 13:48:02 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, joao@...rdrivepizza.com, hjl.tools@...il.com,
        andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ndesaulniers@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        samitolvanen@...gle.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        alyssa.milburn@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/29] objtool: Rename --duplicate to --lto

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 11:42:13AM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > +	OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "lto", &lto, "whole-archive like runs"),
> 
> "--lto" is a confusing name, since this "feature" isn't specific to LTO.
> 
> Also, it gives no indication of what it actually does.
> 
> What it does is, run objtool on vmlinux or module just like it's a
> normal object, and *don't* do noinstr validation.  Right?
> 
> It's weird for the noinstr-only-mode to be the default.
> 
> BTW "--duplicate" had similar problems...
> 
> So how about:
> 
> - Default to normal mode on vmlinux/module, i.e. validate and/or
>   generate ORC like any other object.  This default is more logically
>   consistent and makes sense for the future once we get around to
>   parallelizing objtool.
> 
> - Have "--noinstr", which does noinstr validation, in addition to all
>   the other objtool validation/generation.  So it's additive, like any
>   other cmdline option.  (Maybe this option isn't necessarily needed for
>   now.)

It just dawned on me that "--noinstr" already exists.  But I'm
scratching my head trying to figure out the difference between
"--noinstr" and omitting "--lto".

> - Have "--noinstr-only" which only does noinstr validation and nothing
>   else.  (Alternatively, "--noinstr --dry-run")
> 
> ?

-- 
Josh