On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:18:35AM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 04:29:13PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:19:18AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> > > From: Michael Roth <michael.roth@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > As of commit 103a4908ad4d ("x86/head/64: Disable stack protection for
> > > head$(BITS).o") kernel/head64.c is compiled with -fno-stack-protector
> > > to allow a call to set_bringup_idt_handler(), which would otherwise
> > > have stack protection enabled with CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG. While
> > > sufficient for that case, this will still cause issues if we attempt to
^^^
I'm tired of repeating the same review comments with you guys:
Who's "we"?
Please use passive voice in your text: no "we" or "I", etc.
Personal pronouns are ambiguous in text, especially with so many
parties/companies/etc developing the kernel so let's avoid them please.
How about you pay more attention?
> I didn't realize the the 32-bit path was something you were suggesting
> to have added in this patch, but I'll take a look at that as well.
If you're going to remove the -no-stack-protector thing for that file,
then pls remove it for both 32- and 64-bit. I.e., the revert what
103a4908ad4d did.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
