From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFC2C2D0DB for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:39:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D622072C for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:39:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="X0XBSqcN" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2403890AbgAXSjs (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:39:48 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-f193.google.com ([209.85.167.193]:42055 "EHLO mail-oi1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388138AbgAXSjs (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:39:48 -0500 Received: by mail-oi1-f193.google.com with SMTP id 18so426947oin.9 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:39:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ur5wn0jQUUm7psVtxYzvB782IVJQCdtTuuwvxJbzuK4=; b=X0XBSqcNCxk9PTnmv5MWAedQ+6T4i53cVWfLpwz1c3deUfX8Cr6FZx55tbRy/FE2Xj XCkDMkBOHkWzAxaz2jThEzrMq12iF7BAl+HXbHoDnuh3rSdhuX9Ei5I+0uZasJs/cwGa vIeQbkoQfPe1B/oysaOerxWrTNsBpjpl0wleGNziPsxbH+L1jTuYhG61A1ri0f2nCuLN ha1+lp5thUPnpXh7j5SRghbVAwkb5JkF8P3IN1chc0+llDqzr2kIC/cXOna9vaaYJtew wH4qE54VTohWkCzb9BJd2Fv7XV3NFrVYBrJON/BWmyfV48nM9djYonAGr//PdVBjKkQv cy8g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ur5wn0jQUUm7psVtxYzvB782IVJQCdtTuuwvxJbzuK4=; b=mEELfb9DLFi9xjfOWCGHSU2J8q2KtG9iFd8U+ZuO9lHtpwCtmaa3TP6bHD47myJw4h WLxr4jAqeMw6CDvJS8WNj+NSRYRmtoEDfnM4GXYAu6CBuiWXxQtlpmkTS5iWTuFak6VS GWyMgT48NZHqBfJy/HtonVBM01OL19rxbLopc/an5AkZUhnTstaGAbgvcnCVevWd38iF XVEorkKfz4yMbIvCRlFKMXpY6CqaydjHsR4tMkWuuHTIjdQ/2SvjkoHKC9WavmkM2X7t 7LGcsHKbygSQt1B7mybsjMZooG6XbKlYVdeTE09bioi8SyVQGTpJlfuCHHU57clHaJmt 5ySA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWEKXas/34w2xbpq4y1KLswiXHEPcyfA/5f3iq7AER2yhyziZOX ROu1+X4UDYtkFejCtLwwFeDjdj+C8v2a/yK4FPA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwE2svQq9XxuHw0G4MW4VIcqvGyEo2etKveL2u1hVTbuluJ/3vyslNOBm1w8ygDsvsLJb15KLXoH+FzN0BmwPU= X-Received: by 2002:aca:f507:: with SMTP id t7mr129477oih.156.1579891187238; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:39:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200124181811.4780-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:39:11 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Don't clare __force_order in kaslr_64.c To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , Yu-cheng Yu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:24 AM Andy Lutomirski wrot= e: > > > > > On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:18 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > =EF=BB=BFGCC 10 changed the default to -fno-common, which leads to > > > > LD arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux > > ld: arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable_64.o:(.bss+0x0): multiple definiti= on of `__force_order'; arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr_64.o:(.bss+0x0): firs= t defined here > > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile:119: arch/x86/boot/comp= ressed/vmlinux] Error 1 > > > > Since __force_order is already provided in pgtable_64.c, there is no > > need to declare __force_order in kaslr_64.c. > > Why does anything actually define that variable? Surely any actual refer= ences are just an outright bug. Is it needed for LTO? It is needed by GCC 10 without LTO. --=20 H.J.