linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild: Make $(LLVM) more flexible

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: <YiJXUL3zIik+4QDv@thelio-3990X>
Date:   Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:15:44 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild: Make $(LLVM) more flexible

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:09:03AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:08:14AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > [...]
> > 
> > Update and reorder the documentation to reflect these new additions.
> > At the same time, notate that LLVM=0 is not the same as just omitting it
> > altogether, which has confused people in the past.
> 
> Is it worth making LLVM=0 actually act the way it's expected to?

I don't really see the point, omitting $(LLVM) altogether is simpler.
Why specify LLVM=0 if you want GNU tools, since it is the default?
However, I can look into changing that in a new revision or a follow up
if others disagree?

> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200317215515.226917-1-ndesaulniers@google.com/
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220224151322.072632223@infradead.org/
> > Suggested-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
> > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
> 
> Looks good; minor .rst nit below...
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> 
> > [...]
> > -LLVM has substitutes for GNU binutils utilities. Kbuild supports ``LLVM=1``
> > -to enable them. ::
> > -
> > -	make LLVM=1
> > -
> > -They can be enabled individually. The full list of the parameters: ::
> > +LLVM has substitutes for GNU binutils utilities. They can be enabled individually.
> > +The full list of supported make variables: ::
> 
> ": ::" and "::" yield the same result. I think the latter is more
> readable in non-rendered form. *shrug*

Ack, I'll wait for other feedback before sending v3, unless there is
none and Masahiro does not mind fixing it up during application.

Thanks for the review!
Nathan