On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > good catch! > I wonder why sched.h is using this flag insead of relying on #defines from > autoconf.h > It could have been using CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR > instead of CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR, no ? >
Thanks for your reply Alexei. I think switching to HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR could indeed solve this particular BPF issue in a cleaner way (I tested it), at the cost of having that struct member always present for the supported architectures even if the stack protector is actually disabled (e.g. CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y). Not sure if this could be frowned upon by someone considering how critical task_struct is, but on the other hand is really just 8 bytes. Thanks
