[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202009031510.32523E45EC@keescook>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 15:11:54 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/28] kbuild: lto: fix module versioning
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 01:30:35PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> With CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, version information is linked into each
> compilation unit that exports symbols. With LTO, we cannot use this
> method as all C code is compiled into LLVM bitcode instead. This
> change collects symbol versions into .symversions files and merges
> them in link-vmlinux.sh where they are all linked into vmlinux.o at
> the same time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
The only thought I have here is I wonder if this change could be made
universally instead of gating on LTO? (i.e. is it noticeably slower to
do it this way under non-LTO?)
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
