On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:04:17PM -0800, Gianluca Borello wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > good catch!
> > I wonder why sched.h is using this flag insead of relying on #defines from
> > autoconf.h
> > It could have been using CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> > instead of CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR, no ?
> Thanks for your reply Alexei. I think switching to
> HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR could indeed solve this particular BPF issue in
> a cleaner way (I tested it), at the cost of having that struct member
> always present for the supported architectures even if the stack
> protector is actually disabled (e.g. CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y).
if defined(HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR) && !defined(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE)
def(have_cc) && (def(cc_stack_regular) || def(cc_stack_strong) ||
let's fix it properly instead of adding more hacks to Makefiles