This adds a hopefully helpful comment above the (seemingly weird)
compiler flag selection logic.
Suggested-by: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
Makefile | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 13175632137f..ea88e68d121e 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -630,6 +630,22 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call
cc-option,-Wframe-larger-than=${CONFIG_FRAME_WARN})
endif
# Handle stack protector mode.
+#
+# Since kbuild can potentially perform two passes (first with the old
+# .config values and then with updated .config values), we cannot error out
+# if a desired compiler option is unsupported. If we were to error, kbuild
+# could never get to the second pass and actually notice that we changed
+# the option to something that was supported.
+#
+# Additionally, we don't want to fallback and/or silently change which compiler
+# flags will be used, since that leads to producing kernels with different
+# security feature characteristics depending on the compiler used. ("But I
+# selected CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG! Why did it build with _REGULAR?!")
+#
+# The middle ground is to warn here so that the failed option is obvious, but
+# to let the build fail with bad compiler flags so that we can't produce a
+# kernel when there is a CONFIG and compiler mismatch.
+#
ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR
stackp-flag := -fstack-protector
ifeq ($(call cc-option, $(stackp-flag)),)
--
1.7.9.5
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
