From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760810AbdKPSrP (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:47:15 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:55834 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751064AbdKPSrH (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:47:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:47:15 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Sami Tolvanen Cc: Alex Matveev , Andi Kleen , Ard Biesheuvel , Greg Hackmann , Kees Cook , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , Masahiro Yamada , Maxim Kuvyrkov , Michal Marek , Nick Desaulniers , Yury Norov , Matthias Kaehlcke Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/18] arm64: add a workaround for GNU gold with ARM64_MODULE_PLTS Message-ID: <20171116184714.GD21898@arm.com> References: <20171116164101.GE94341@samitolvanen.mtv.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171116164101.GE94341@samitolvanen.mtv.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:41:01AM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:50:12AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > Why don't we just not do LTO if the toolchain is busted? > > Because LTO can not only potentially improve performance, especially > when combined with PGO (Profile Guided Optimization), but it also > makes it possible to enable features like Control Flow Integrity that > can make kernel vulnerabilities more difficult to exploit: > > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.html > > > This feels like it will end up being a game of whack-a-mole as code > > could be introduced that tickles known bugs on older toolchains. > > I'm not sure this is much different from dealing with older versions > of the existing toolchain. Otherwise, we wouldn't need cc-version or > other similar macros, for example. I think the big difference is that we have no compelling need to support older versions of clang or gold. Will