Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:38:03 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/17] x86, lto: Mark all top level asm statements as
 .text
Message-ID: <20190326213803.GN18020@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <20190321220009.29334-1-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <20190321220009.29334-3-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903261751490.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903261751490.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:03:59PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Andi,
> 
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > With gcc 8 toplevel assembler statements that do not mark themselves
> > as .text may end up in other sections.
> 
> Which is clearly a change in behaviour. Is that intended or just yet
> another feature of GCC?

I'm not sure it's a new behavior, but I've seen it first
with gcc 8.

> 
> Your subject says: 'x86, lto:'
> 
> So is this a LTO related problem or is the section randomization
> independent of LTO?

The basic behavior is independent of LTO, but I've only seen
failures with LTO. But I believe in theory it could lead
to failures even without LTO.

-Andi