[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 4/7] kconfig: support new special property shell=
    Looks to me like there's a few unrelated issues here:

    1. The stack protector support test scripts

    Worthwhile IMO if they (*in practice*) prevent hard-to-debug build errors or a
    subtly broken kernel from being built.

    A few questions:

    - How do things fail with a broken stack protector implementation?

    - How common are those broken compilers?

    - Do you really need to pass $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) when testing for breakage,
    or would a simpler static test work in practice?

    I don't know how messy it would be to get $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) into
    Kconfig, but should make sure it's actually needed in any case.

    The scripts are already split up as


    by the way, though only and exist.

    - How old do you need to go with GCC for -fno-stack-protector to give an
    error (i.e., for not even the option to be recognized)? Is it still
    warranted to test for it?

    Adding some CCs who worked on the stack protector test scripts.

    And yeah, I was assuming that needing support scripts would be rare, and that
    you'd usually just check whether gcc accepts the flag.

    When you Google "gcc broken stack protector", the top hits about are about the
    scripts/ script in the kernel throwing a false
    positive by the way (fixed in 82031ea29e45 ("scripts/has-stack-protector: add

    2. Whether to hide the Kconfig stack protector alternatives or always show them

    Or equivalently, whether to automatically fall back on other stack protector
    alternatives (including no stack protector) if the one specified in the .config
    isn't available.

    I'll let you battle this one out. In any case, as a user, I'd want a
    super-clear message telling me what to change if the build breaks because of
    missing stack protector support.

    3. Whether to implement CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO in Kconfig or the Makefiles

    I'd just go with whatever is simplest here. I don't find the Kconfig version
    too bad, but I'm already very familiar with Kconfig, so it's harder for me to
    tell how it looks to other people.

    I'd add some comments to explain the idea in the final version.

    I was assuming that the Makefiles would error out with a message if none of the
    CC_STACKPROTECTOR_* variables are set, in addition to the Kconfig warning.

    You could offload part of that check to Kconfig with something like


    CHOSEN_STACKPROTECTOR_AVAILABLE could then be checked in the Makefile.
    It has the advantage of making the constraint clear in the Kconfig file
    at least.

    You could add some kind of assert feature to Kconfig too, but IMO it's not
    warranted purely for one-offs like this at least.

    That's details though. I'd want to explain it with a comment in any case if we
    go with something like this, since it's slightly kludgy and subtle
    (CC_STACKPROTECTOR_{STRONG,REGULAR,NONE} form a kind of choice, only you can't
    express it like that directly, since it's derived from other symbols).

    Here's an overview of the current Kconfig layout by the way, assuming
    the old no-fallback behavior and CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO being
    implemented in Kconfig:

    # Feature tests

    # User request

    # The actual "output" to the Makefiles

    # Some possible output "nicities"

    Does anyone have objections to the naming or other things? I saw some
    references to "Santa's wish list" in messages of commits that dealt with other
    variables named WANT_*, though I didn't look into those cases. ;)


     \ /
      Last update: 2018-02-11 11:35    [W:3.803 / U:1.160 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site