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:   Sat, 21 Nov 2020 12:11:25 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/17] kbuild: add support for Clang LTO
Message-ID: <202011211204.211E2B12@keescook>
References: <20201118220731.925424-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20201118220731.925424-3-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <CAKwvOdnYTMzaahnBqdNYPz3KMdnkp=jZ4hxiqkTYzM5+BBdezA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABCJKucj_jUwoiLc35R7qFe+cNKTWgT+gsCa5pPiY66+1--3Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <202011201144.3F2BB70C@keescook>
 <20201120202935.GA1220359@ubuntu-m3-large-x86>
 <202011201241.B159562D7@keescook>
 <CABCJKucJ87wa73YJkN_dYUyE7foQT+12gdWJZw1PgZ_decFr4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <202011201556.3B910EF@keescook>
 <CABCJKudy5xFfjBFpFPR255-NAb1yOSuVqsL4fFUwJGGWKDnmQQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABCJKudy5xFfjBFpFPR255-NAb1yOSuVqsL4fFUwJGGWKDnmQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 05:46:44PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Sure, this looks good to me, I'll use this in v8. The only minor
> concern I have is that ThinLTO cannot be set as the default LTO mode,
> but I assume anyone who selects LTO is also capable of deciding which
> mode is better for them.

It could be re-arranged similar to what you had before, but like:

config LTO
	bool "..."
	depends on HAS_LTO
	help
	  ...

choice
	prompt "LTO mode" if LTO
	default LTO_GCC if HAS_LTO_GCC
	default LTO_CLANG_THIN if HAS_LTO_CLANG
	default LTO_CLANG_FULL
	help
	  ...

	config LTO_CLANG_THIN
	...

	config LTO_CLANG_FULL
endchoice

Then the LTO is top-level yes/no, but depends on detected capabilities,
and the mode is visible if LTO is chosen, etc.

I'm not really sure which is better...

> > +config LTO_CLANG_THIN
> > +       bool "Clang ThinLTO (EXPERIMENTAL)"
> > +       depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_LTO_CLANG_THIN
> > +       select LTO_CLANG
> > +       help
> > +         This option enables Clang's ThinLTO, which allows for parallel
> > +         optimization and faster incremental compiles compared to the
> > +         CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_FULL option. More information can be found
> > +         from Clang's documentation:
> > +
> > +           https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThinLTO.html
> > +
> > +         If unsure, say Y.
> >  endchoice
> 
> The two LTO_CLANG_* options need to depend on HAS_LTO_CLANG, of course.

Whoops, yes. Thanks for catching that. :)

-- 
Kees Cook