[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOFdcFOgAH1z7EKyM=Q4EvzLuKETOWWDMwuqp36SxV-X6PGP5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:49:34 -0800
From: Peter Foley <pefoley2@...oley.com>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
Cc: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: bpf: Disable stack protector
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 4:59 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com> wrote:
>
> A bit tangential, but since BPF LLVM backend does not support the
> stack protector (should it?) there is also an option to adjust LLVM
> to avoid this instrumentation, WDYT?
>
That would probably be worth doing, yes.
But given that won't help already released versions of clang, it
should probably happen in addition to this patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists