[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 23:15:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:31:38PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> This patch series adds support for building x86_64 and arm64 kernels
> with Clang's Link Time Optimization (LTO).
>
> In addition to performance, the primary motivation for LTO is to allow
> Clang's Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) to be used in the kernel. Google's
> Pixel devices have shipped with LTO+CFI kernels since 2018.
>
> Most of the patches are build system changes for handling LLVM bitcode,
> which Clang produces with LTO instead of ELF object files, postponing
> ELF processing until a later stage, and ensuring initcall ordering.
>
> Note that first objtool patch in the series is already in linux-next,
> but as it's needed with LTO, I'm including it also here to make testing
> easier.
I'm very sad that yet again, memory ordering isn't addressed. LTO vastly
increases the range of the optimizer to wreck things.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
