On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 05:06:39PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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? If you could verify it actually works that would be great, I haven't tried to construct a failing .config yet.
