* Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:52 PM Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Currently, x86-64 uses an unusual percpu layout, where the percpu section
> > is linked at absolute address 0.  The reason behind this is that older GCC
> > versions placed the stack protector (if enabled) at a fixed offset from the
> > GS segment base.  Since the GS segement is also used for percpu variables,
> > this forced the current layout.
> >
> > GCC since version 8.1 supports a configurable location for the stack
> > protector value, which allows removal of the restriction on how the percpu
> > section is linked.  This allows the percpu section to be linked normally,
> > like other architectures.  In turn, this allows removal of code that was
> > needed to support the zero-based percpu section.
> 
> The number of simplifications throughout the code, enabled by this
> patch set, is really impressive, and it reflects the number of
> workarounds to enable the feature that was originally not designed for
> the kernel usage. As noted above, this issue was recognized in the GCC
> compiler and the stack protector support was generalized by adding
> configurable location for the stack protector value [1,2].
> 
> The improved stack protector support was implemented in gcc-8.1,
> released on May 2, 2018, when linux 4.17 was in development. In light
> of this fact, and 5 (soon 6) GCC major releases later, I'd like to ask
> if the objtool support to fixup earlier compilers is really necessary.
> Please note that years ago x86_32 simply dropped stack protector
> support with earlier compilers and IMO, we should follow this example
> also with x86_64, because:

Ack on raising the minimum version requirement for x86-64 
stackprotector to 8.1 or so - this causes no real pain on the distro 
side: when *this* new kernel of ours is picked by a distro, it almost 
always goes hand in hand with a compiler version upgrade.

We should be careful with fixes marked for -stable backport, but other 
than that, new improvements like Brian's series are a fair game to 
tweak compiler version requirements.

But please emit a (single) prominent build-time warning if a feature is 
disabled though, even if there are no functional side-effects, such as 
for hardening features.

In general distro kernel developers & maintainers like seeing the 
performance (and other) effects of their compiler version choices, but 
we are not very transparent about this: our fallbacks are way too 
opaque right now.

Thanks,

	Ingo