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: <CAK7LNAT+4t_c=SLJqVWYVMaQ8C1uqWCeOFJ6eNczT1TUgEG_Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Mar 2022 03:55:36 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild: Make $(LLVM) more flexible

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:15 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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?


Changing the meaning of LLVM=0 is beyond the scope of what
we are trying to achieve now.

I think documenting it is enough.

(If we have a good reason to change it, we can. But, it should be
done in a separate patch, at least)






-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada