On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Friday 18 December 2015 13:04:59 Kees Cook wrote: >> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM_ATAG_DTB_COMPAT),y) >> +CFLAGS_atags_to_fdt.o := -fno-stack-protector >> +CFLAGS_fdt.o := -fno-stack-protector >> +CFLAGS_fdt_ro.o := -fno-stack-protector >> +CFLAGS_fdt_rw.o := -fno-stack-protector >> +CFLAGS_fdt_wip.o := -fno-stack-protector >> +endif > > I'm pretty sure you don't need the ifeq there, you can simply define those > flags unconditionally. > > You can't just add -fno-stack-protector unconditionally, because that > breaks building the kernel with toolchains that are older than > stack-protector, > so this should be > > CFLAGS_obj.o += $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector) > > Other than that, the patch looks ok.
Ah, yes, all excellent points. I'll resend. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS & Brillo Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
