[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=B9NmC=1eSaOrg7XutjueQsSXGcBQb7dQFPuL0SFjPsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:07:09 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: a.hindborg@...sung.com, alex.gaynor@...il.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me,
bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net,
kees@...nel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
masahiroy@...nel.org, mmaurer@...gle.com, nathan@...nel.org,
nicolas@...sle.eu, ojeda@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com, wedsonaf@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2b] rust: cfi: add support for CFI_CLANG with Rust
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:55 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> +PADDING_RUSTFLAGS := -Zpatchable-function-entry=$(CONFIG_FUNCTION_PADDING_BYTES),$(CONFIG_FUNCTION_PADDING_BYTES)
> +KBUILD_RUSTFLAGS += $(PADDING_RUSTFLAGS)
> +export PADDING_RUSTFLAGS
It is possible to have CALL_PADDING && !FINEIBT, which means one can
trigger a build error if the compiler is not recent enough. Should we
test for CALL_PADDING here?
> + depends on !FINEIBT || RUSTC_VERSION >= 108000
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists