./Makefile: explain stack-protector-strong CONFIG logic

This adds a hopefully helpful comment above the (seemingly weird) compiler
flag selection logic.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Suggested-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index d0901b46b4bfd15aedfd3a0ccfa2d3c3255ff8fc..af2f2fcfe01c17d387970d10c5062777d9377b55 100644 (file)
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -636,6 +636,22 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wframe-larger-than=${CONFIG_FRAME_WARN})
 endif
 
 # Handle stack protector mode.
+#
+# Since kbuild can potentially perform two passes (first with the old
+# .config values and then with updated .config values), we cannot error out
+# if a desired compiler option is unsupported. If we were to error, kbuild
+# could never get to the second pass and actually notice that we changed
+# the option to something that was supported.
+#
+# Additionally, we don't want to fallback and/or silently change which compiler
+# flags will be used, since that leads to producing kernels with different
+# security feature characteristics depending on the compiler used. ("But I
+# selected CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG! Why did it build with _REGULAR?!")
+#
+# The middle ground is to warn here so that the failed option is obvious, but
+# to let the build fail with bad compiler flags so that we can't produce a
+# kernel when there is a CONFIG and compiler mismatch.
+#
 ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR
   stackp-flag := -fstack-protector
   ifeq ($(call cc-option, $(stackp-flag)),)