| Message ID | 15350fcc-86ad-d42a-27a9-c0cbab091559@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | build: deal with future GNU ld warnings | expand |
Hi, You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on the ML? On 06/05/2022 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote: > We cannot really avoid such and we're also not really at risk because of > them, as we control page table permissions ourselves rather than relying > on a loader of some sort. Is this a preventive commit, or you have seen it in action? Cheers,
On 06.05.2022 15:43, Julien Grall wrote: > You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on > the ML? "future" as in "no released version yet". The change is present on the binutils master branch. > On 06/05/2022 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >> We cannot really avoid such and we're also not really at risk because of >> them, as we control page table permissions ourselves rather than relying >> on a loader of some sort. > > Is this a preventive commit, or you have seen it in action? I've seen it in action. Jan
On 06/05/2022 14:46, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 06.05.2022 15:43, Julien Grall wrote: >> You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on >> the ML? > "future" as in "no released version yet". The change is present on the > binutils master branch. In which case, I'd recommend saying "build: suppress GNU ld warning about RWX load segments" in the subject, and in the commit message saying "warning present in master, anticipated to be included in release 2.$whatever". That, combined with the date, is enough information for people to track things down even if upstream binutils change their versioning scheme. ~Andrew
On 06/05/2022 15:18, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 06/05/2022 14:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 06.05.2022 15:43, Julien Grall wrote: >>> You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on >>> the ML? >> "future" as in "no released version yet". The change is present on the >> binutils master branch. > In which case, I'd recommend saying "build: suppress GNU ld warning > about RWX load segments" in the subject, and in the commit message > saying "warning present in master, anticipated to be included in release > 2.$whatever". > > That, combined with the date, is enough information for people to track > things down even if upstream binutils change their versioning scheme. One other thing. With something to ^ effect, both patches Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> ~Andrew
Hi Jan, On 06/05/2022 14:46, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 06.05.2022 15:43, Julien Grall wrote: >> You say future, has this option been merged or still in discussion on >> the ML? > > "future" as in "no released version yet". The change is present on the > binutils master branch. Thanks for the clarification. In which case, can you update the commit message like Andrew suggested. For both: Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> Cheers,
--- a/xen/Makefile +++ b/xen/Makefile @@ -397,6 +397,8 @@ endif AFLAGS += -D__ASSEMBLY__ +LDFLAGS-$(call ld-option,--warn-rwx-segments) += --no-warn-rwx-segments + CFLAGS += $(CFLAGS-y) # allow extra CFLAGS externally via EXTRA_CFLAGS_XEN_CORE CFLAGS += $(EXTRA_CFLAGS_XEN_CORE)
We cannot really avoid such and we're also not really at risk because of them, as we control page table permissions ourselves rather than relying on a loader of some sort. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>