On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 04:16:34PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 07/12/2016 08:28 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Typically, architectures (including arm and arm64) define OBJCOPYFLAGS in their > >top-level makefile, for the purpose of generating a raw binaries suitable for > >booting, including Image, zImage, vmlinux.bin, etc. > > > >As this top-level arch makefile is included by the top-level kernel makefile, > >these flags are passed to other invocations of objcopy tree-wide. This can > >result in unexpected and inconsistent behaviour across architectures (e.g. > >generation of a raw binary rather than an ELF [1]). > > > >Rather than force each new user of objcopy to specially clear OBJCOPYFLAGS, > >this patch moves the existing OBJCOPYFLAGS variable definitions such that they > >only affects the cases we require them for today, leaving the global namespace > >clear. > > > >Other architectures will likely need similar treatment. > > > >Thanks, > >Mark. > > > >[1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2016/06/08/2 > > > >Mark Rutland (2): > > arm64: localise Image objcopy flags > > arm: localise objcopy flags > > > > arch/arm/Makefile | 1 - > > arch/arm/boot/Makefile | 2 ++ > > arch/arm64/Makefile | 1 - > > arch/arm64/boot/Makefile | 2 ++ > > 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > Kees' lkdtm tests compile and boot successfully with this patch for > both arm and arm64 so you can add > > Tested-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx> Cheers! On the assumption that Russell is ok with the arm patch, I've dropped that in the patch system (with tags) as 8588/1 [1]. Catalin, Will, I guess I should repost the arm64 patch come v4.8-rc1? Thanks, Mark. [1] http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=8588/1 -- 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
