On Thu, 7 Jul 2016, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > I'd rather make that a weak function returning 1 which can be replaced by
> > x86 for CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y. That also allows other architectures to
> > implement their specific frame checks.
>
> Yeah, though I prefer CONFIG-controlled stuff over weak functions, but
> I agree, something like arch_check_stack_frame(...) or similar. I'll
> build something for this on the next revision.
I'm fine with CONFIG_CONTROLLED as long as the ifdeffery is limited to header
files.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
