From: Petteri Aimonen
Add a selftest for the usage of FPU code in kernel mode.
Currently only implemented for x86. In the future, kernel FPU testing
could be unified between the different architectures supporting it.
[ bp: Split out from a conglomerate patch, put comments over statements,
r
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:41 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> From: Petteri Aimonen
>
> Add a selftest for the usage of FPU code in kernel mode.
>
> Currently only implemented for x86. In the future, kernel FPU testing
> could be unified between the different architectures supporting it.
Acked-by:
Hi Borislav,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on kselftest/next]
[also build test ERROR on tip/auto-latest linus/master v5.8-rc1 next-20200618]
[cannot apply to tip/x86/core]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 03:55:00AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> Hi Borislav,
>
> Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
>
> [auto build test ERROR on kselftest/next]
> [also build test ERROR on tip/auto-latest linus/master v5.8-rc1 next-20200618]
> [cannot apply to tip/x86/core]
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:00:28AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> This should be cc-option, not cc-ifversion, I think.
Why?
> But maybe we should consider dropping the problematic GCC version
> instead? The old GCC versions with stack alignment problems are
> seriously problematic for x86 kernel
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:04 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 03:55:00AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Hi Borislav,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
> >
> > [auto build test ERROR on kselftest/next]
> > [also build test ERROR on tip/auto-latest
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:12 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:00:28AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > This should be cc-option, not cc-ifversion, I think.
>
> Why?
For all the ridiculous distro gcc versions out there. Also, it seems
less fragile, since it tests for wha
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:26:50AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> For all the ridiculous distro gcc versions out there. Also, it seems
> less fragile, since it tests for what you actually care about
Let's cross that bridge when we get there.
Do you know of an actual compiler not supporting
-mpr
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:13 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:07:13PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > You already have a conditional below for CC_IS_GCC; just add an else
> > and unconditionally add -msse2. You *should* use -msse2 for GCC 7.1+
> > IMO.
>
> Why if one c
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:58:15PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> My point was more so about avoiding needless cc-option checks when
> they're tautological.
No, you're right. The oldest gcc we support is 4.8 and that eats -msse2
just fine.
> When Andy says "consider dropping the problematic GCC
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:37:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> It’s this whole mess:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53383
It really is a mess because our option detection doesn't really work. I did:
ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC
ifeq ($(call cc-option-yn,-mpreferred-stack-bounda
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:28 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:37:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > It’s this whole mess:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53383
>
> It really is a mess because our option detection doesn't really work. I did:
>
> ifde
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:22:53AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> See that same atrocious bug report. It's the insane interaction
> between -mno-sse2 and -mpreferred-stack-boundary. So you need to
> cc-option them both? Or just stick with a compiler version check, I
> guess.
Yes, it was the in
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:22:53AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > See that same atrocious bug report. It's the insane interaction
> > between -mno-sse2 and -mpreferred-stack-boundary. So you need to
> > cc-option them both? Or just
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:07:13PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> You already have a conditional below for CC_IS_GCC; just add an else
> and unconditionally add -msse2. You *should* use -msse2 for GCC 7.1+
> IMO.
Why if one can write it more compact with cc-option?
FPU_CFLAGS += $(call cc-opti
15 matches
Mail list logo