[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ce6cf96-685d-4792-b2fd-949c07eff707@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 07:15:29 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Bill Wendling
<morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...nel.org>,
Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>, Arthur Eubanks <aeubanks@...gle.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/purgatory: Switch to the position-independent small
code model
Hi,
On 29. 04. 24, 14:05, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
>> Interesting. I thought gcc doesn't have problems here yet and was
>> talking to Matz on Thu about it and it seems he's forgotten about his
>> statement too that "you should simply stop using -mcmodel=large. Noone
>> should use it." :-)
>
> It may be so ingrained in my brain that I'm not _always_ saying it when
> talking about the large code model over a beer. And indeed I know of no
> particular problems with it vis GCC,
Of course you do :). That bsc#1211853 I linked earlier. I.e. gcc-13 +
-fstrict-flex-arrays=3 + -mcmodel=large + some asm() expecting __FILE__
to be constant (not true with the large model).
regards,
--
js
suse labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists