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:   Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:03:03 +0100
From:   Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10
Message-ID: <20200316180303.GR2156@tucnak>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
References: <20200314164451.346497-1-slyfox@gentoo.org>
 <20200316130414.GC12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200316132648.GM2156@tucnak>
 <20200316134234.GE12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200316175450.GO26126@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200316175450.GO26126@zn.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:54:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> So having a way to state "do not add stack canary checking to this
> particular function" would be optimal. And since you already have the
> "stack_protect" function attribute I figure adding a "no_stack_protect"
> one should be easy...

Easy, but a waste when GCC already has the optimize attribute that can
handle also ~450 other options that are per-function rather than per-TU.

	Jakub