[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa3c22057e798f0a2946661ac73dc4c2f923d317.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:53:21 +0200
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Peter Foley <pefoley2@...oley.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, 2023-01-16 at 14:49 -0800, Peter Foley wrote:
> 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.
Ok, thanks for the input, I'll see what can be done.
> But given that won't help already released versions of clang, it
> should probably happen in addition to this patch.
Yes, of-course.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists