[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:58:41 -0800
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/17] kbuild: add support for Clang LTO
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:43 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:29:35PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:47:21AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:23:11AM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > > Changing the ThinLTO config to a choice and moving it after the main
> > > > LTO config sounds like a good idea to me. I'll see if I can change
> > > > this in v8. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Originally, I thought this might be a bit ugly once GCC LTO is added,
> > > but this could be just a choice like we're done for the stack
> > > initialization. Something like an "LTO" choice of NONE, CLANG_FULL,
> > > CLANG_THIN, and in the future GCC, etc.
> >
> > Having two separate choices might be a little bit cleaner though? One
> > for the compiler (LTO_CLANG versus LTO_GCC) and one for the type
> > (THINLTO versus FULLLTO). The type one could just have a "depends on
> > CC_IS_CLANG" to ensure it only showed up when needed.
>
> Right, that's how the stack init choice works. Kconfigs that aren't
> supported by the compiler won't be shown. I.e. after Sami's future
> patch, the only choice for GCC will be CONFIG_LTO_NONE. But building
> under Clang, it would offer CONFIG_LTO_NONE, CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_FULL,
> CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN, or something.
>
> (and I assume CONFIG_LTO would be def_bool y, depends on !LTO_NONE)
I'm fine with adding ThinLTO as another option to the LTO choice, but
it would duplicate the dependencies and a lot of the help text. I
suppose we could add another config for the dependencies and have both
LTO options depend on that instead.
Sami
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.
