Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:30:14 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO
Message-ID: <20200624213014.GB26253@google.com>
References: <20200624203200.78870-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20200624211540.GS4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200624211540.GS4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:15:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:31:38PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > This patch series adds support for building x86_64 and arm64 kernels
> > with Clang's Link Time Optimization (LTO).
> > 
> > In addition to performance, the primary motivation for LTO is to allow
> > Clang's Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) to be used in the kernel. Google's
> > Pixel devices have shipped with LTO+CFI kernels since 2018.
> > 
> > Most of the patches are build system changes for handling LLVM bitcode,
> > which Clang produces with LTO instead of ELF object files, postponing
> > ELF processing until a later stage, and ensuring initcall ordering.
> > 
> > Note that first objtool patch in the series is already in linux-next,
> > but as it's needed with LTO, I'm including it also here to make testing
> > easier.
> 
> I'm very sad that yet again, memory ordering isn't addressed. LTO vastly
> increases the range of the optimizer to wreck things.

I believe Will has some thoughts about this, and patches, but I'll let
him talk about it.

Sami