On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:59 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:27:45PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> > On 6/18/19 3:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:02 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I guess this:
> > ccflags-y += $(DISABLE_STACKLEAK_PLUGIN)
>
> Or more specifically this, I guess:
>
> CFLAGS_ubsan.o := $(call cc-option, -fno-conserve-stack -fno-stack-protector) $(DISABLE_STACKLEAK_PLUGIN)
>
> we'd not want to exclude all of lib/ from stackleak I figure.
>
> Of these two options, I think I prefer the latter, because a smaller
> whitelist is a better whitelist and since we already disable
> stack protector, it is only consistent to also disable stack leak.
Ok, sounds good to me. Can you send that upstream then, or should
I write it up as a proper patch?
Arnd
