On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Andrew Morton
<a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:53:10 -0700 Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 08:47:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >
>> >> To clarify: with my gcc-4.9/gcc-5 build, -mstack-protector-guard=tls
>> >> has no effect,
>> >> the output is the same as with -mstack-protector-guard=global using the
>> >> Ubuntu
>> >> compilers of the same version.
>> >
>> > Jumping in here... on IRC Arnd suggested reverting 123c48cf899d
>> > ("Makefile: introduce CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO") from -next. What
>> > do you think Kees?
>>
>> Until we sort this out, yes, agreed. Andrew, can you pull the patches?
>
> Sure. All these?
>
> sh-boot-add-static-stack-protector-to-pre-kernel.patch
> makefile-move-stackprotector-availability-out-of-kconfig.patch
This one can stay. (It does actually fix another case no one else noticed.)
> makefile-introduce-config_cc_stackprotector_auto.patch
> makefile-introduce-config_cc_stackprotector_auto-fix.patch
> makefile-introduce-config_cc_stackprotector_auto-fix-2.patch
> makefile-introduce-config_cc_stackprotector_auto-fix-3.patch
Yes, these should get dropped for the moment, thanks. Arnd and I have
been trying to get to the bottom of it.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
