On Thu, 7 Jul 2016, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'd rather make that a weak function returning 1 which can be replaced by > > x86 for CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y. That also allows other architectures to > > implement their specific frame checks. > > Yeah, though I prefer CONFIG-controlled stuff over weak functions, but > I agree, something like arch_check_stack_frame(...) or similar. I'll > build something for this on the next revision. I'm fine with CONFIG_CONTROLLED as long as the ifdeffery is limited to header files. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
