From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:10:38 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good Message-Id: <20080417231038.72363123.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080417224908.67cec814@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <20080417160331.b4729f0c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080417224908.67cec814@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Pekka Enberg , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, James Morris , Stephen Smalley List-ID: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:49:08 -0700 Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:03:31 -0700 > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > I repulled all the trees an hour or two ago, installed everything on > > an 8-way x86_64 box and: > > > > > > stack-protector: > > > > Testing -fstack-protector-all feature > > No -fstack-protector-stack-frame! > > -fstack-protector-all test failed > > do you have a stack-protector capable GCC? I guess not. > > This is a catch-22. You do not have stack-protector. Should we make that > a silent failure? or do you want to know that you don't have a security > feature you thought you had.... complaining seems to be the right thing to do imo. A #warning sounds more appropriate. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org