From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com (Paul Gortmaker) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:04:37 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: dont specify STACKPROTECTOR in defconfigs In-Reply-To: References: <20160721151134.5803-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Message-ID: <20160721180437.GE21225@windriver.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org [Re: [PATCH] ARM: dont specify STACKPROTECTOR in defconfigs] On 22/07/2016 (Fri 01:40) Joel Stanley wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Paul Gortmaker > wrote: > > Note the output from the following: > > > > $ git grep STACKPROTECTOR arch/arm/configs/ > > arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g4_defconfig:CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y > > arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g5_defconfig:CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y > > arch/arm/configs/bcm2835_defconfig:CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR=y > > $ > > > > Only three defconfigs specify a value. And two of the three ask for > > the strong variant, which isn't supported by older toolchains. > > > > Due to the nature of ARM having more platform specific code than say > > x86, the allyesconfig and allmodconfig aren't as effective for build > > coverage. So, in addition, I like to use a trivial script to walk all > > the defconfigs and build each one. > > > > However I will get false positives on unsupported stackprotector values > > with an older toolchain like gcc-4.6.3. As in this instance I am just > > using the compiler as a glorified syntax checker on a machine where I > > build a bunch of other arch for the same reason, there is no real > > motivation to get a newer toolchain for improved optimization etc. > > I'm happy to remove it from the Aspeed configurations as I'm not sure > why it was enabled in the first place. > > However, I do not agree with the reasoning here. If you're building to > check syntax a modern GCC will certainly pick up on more than one from > four years ago. Just to clarify, syntax in this case is just for fat fingered typos and ensuring functions resolve with the appropriate header includes. If I was coding new stuff specifically for ARM, then that would be different. > > > Since there are only three of them, and there is nothing about these > > settings that are board/platform specific, I propose we just eliminate > > the three existing instances and take the default. > > This makes sense to me. > > Acked-by: Joel Stanley Thanks, Paul. --