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 16:39:59 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
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>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/22] arm64: vdso: disable LTO
Message-ID: <20200624233959.GB94769@google.com>
References: <20200624203200.78870-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20200624203200.78870-18-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <CAKwvOdnEbCfYZ9o=OF51oswyqDvN4iP-9syWUDhxfueq4q0xcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200624215231.GC120457@google.com>
 <CAKwvOdnWfhU7n0VfoydC7epJPrj+ASZzyNRpBCNuvT_5E+=FcQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdnWfhU7n0VfoydC7epJPrj+ASZzyNRpBCNuvT_5E+=FcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 04:05:48PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:52 PM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:58:57PM -0700, 'Nick Desaulniers' via Clang Built Linux wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:33 PM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Filter out CC_FLAGS_LTO for the vDSO.
> > >
> > > Just curious about this patch (and the following one for x86's vdso),
> > > do you happen to recall specifically what the issues with the vdso's
> > > are?
> >
> > I recall the compiler optimizing away functions at some point, but as
> > LTO is not really needed in the vDSO, it's just easiest to disable it
> > there.
> 
> Sounds fishy; with extern linkage then I would think it's not safe to
> eliminate functions.  Probably unnecessary for the initial
> implementation, and something we can follow up on, but always good to
> have an answer to the inevitable question "why?" in the commit
> message.

Sure. I can test this again with the current toolchain to see if there
are still problems.

Sami