On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:39:01PM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:13 AM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > The sanitizers are not really applicable to the fragile low level entry > > code. code. Entry code needs to carefully setup a normal 'runtime' > > environment. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > --- > > arch/x86/entry/Makefile | 8 ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/Makefile > > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/Makefile > > @@ -3,6 +3,14 @@ > > # Makefile for the x86 low level entry code > > # > > > > +KASAN_SANITIZE := n > > +UBSAN_SANITIZE := n > > +KCOV_INSTRUMENT := n > > + > > +CFLAGS_REMOVE_common.o = $(CC_FLAGS_FTRACE) -fstack-protector > > -fstack-protector-strong > > +CFLAGS_REMOVE_syscall_32.o = $(CC_FLAGS_FTRACE) -fstack-protector > > -fstack-protector-strong > > +CFLAGS_REMOVE_syscall_64.o = $(CC_FLAGS_FTRACE) -fstack-protector > > -fstack-protector-strong > > Is this necessary for syscall_*.o? They just contain the syscall > tables (ie. data).
Proabaly not, but I just made sure to kill everything, less chance an accident happens.
