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:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:57:03 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubsan: mark ubsan_type_mismatch_common inline
Message-ID: <20190619075703.GK3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190617123109.667090-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20190617140210.GB3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAK8P3a3iwWOkMBL-H3h5aSaHKjKWFce22rvydvVE=3uMfeOhVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <fc10bc69-0628-59eb-c243-9cd1dd3b47a4@virtuozzo.com>
 <20190618135911.GR3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAK8P3a1ZgSYMuD0Xy_fxTqzPhg=U6rqG2Lcfc+3Bni=ZijiE3A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1ZgSYMuD0Xy_fxTqzPhg=U6rqG2Lcfc+3Bni=ZijiE3A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 05:06:39PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:59 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:27:45PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> > > On 6/18/19 3:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:02 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > I guess this:
> > > ccflags-y += $(DISABLE_STACKLEAK_PLUGIN)
> >
> > Or more specifically this, I guess:
> >
> > CFLAGS_ubsan.o := $(call cc-option, -fno-conserve-stack -fno-stack-protector) $(DISABLE_STACKLEAK_PLUGIN)
> >
> > we'd not want to exclude all of lib/ from stackleak I figure.
> >
> > Of these two options, I think I prefer the latter, because a smaller
> > whitelist is a better whitelist and since we already disable
> > stack protector, it is only consistent to also disable stack leak.
> 
> Ok, sounds good to me. Can you send that upstream then, or should
> I write it up as a proper patch?

If you could verify it actually works that would be great, I haven't
tried to construct a failing .config yet.