From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
x86@kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] objtool: move libelf detection to Kconfig from Makefile
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 21:29:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180710022904.e3oql2ts4qz43bzo@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1531186516-15764-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:35:16AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Currently, users are allowed to enable STACK_VALIDATION regardless
> of the compiler capability. The top-level Makefile warns or breaks
> the build if it turns out that the host compiler cannot link libelf.
>
> Move the libelf test to Kconfig so that users can enable the feature
> only when the host compiler can build the objtool. The ugly check
> in the Makefile will go away.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> Acked-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Actually, looking at this again, I want to rescind my ack.
This patches changes the behavior in a subtle (but important) way.
Before, if I did "make defconfig", it would *always* choose the ORC
unwinder. Then, if I didn't have libelf-devel, the build would fail and
it would tell me what I need to install.
But now with this patch, if I do "make defconfig", the generated config
actually changes based on what I happen to have installed on my build
system. If I don't have libelf-devel, then it silently chooses the
non-default unwinder (frame pointer).
This is a subtle difference, but IMO it's dangerous, because it will
silently enable the frame pointer unwinder for the majority of new
systems, even though it's not the default.
I strongly prefer the original behavior, because we really want to
encourage people to use the ORC unwinder, even if that means they have
to install a package to build it.
Also -- in general -- I suspect that silently changing the defaults like
this will create a lot of bad surprises. The output of "make defconfig"
should be predictable and not dependent on what RPMs I happen to have
installed.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-10 2:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-10 1:35 Masahiro Yamada
2018-07-10 2:29 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2018-07-10 3:47 ` Masahiro Yamada
2018-07-10 4:26 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-07-10 5:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-07-10 18:26 ` Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180710022904.e3oql2ts4qz43bzo@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®