Re: [PATCH 12/23] kbuild: avoid re-running compiler and linker probes

[Nicolas Schier]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 09:19:12PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> > index 8583d9f06c52..3c92c87254a3 100644
> > --- a/init/Kconfig
> > +++ b/init/Kconfig
> > @@ -144,6 +144,44 @@ config CC_HAS_ASSUME
> >  config CC_HAS_NO_PROFILE_FN_ATTR
> >  	def_bool $(success,echo '__attribute__((no_profile_instrument_function)) int x();' | $(CC) -x c - -c -o /dev/null -Werror)
> >  
> > +config CC_HAS_ZERO_INIT_PADDING_BITS
> > +	def_bool $(cc-option,-fzero-init-padding-bits=all)
> > +
> > +config CC_HAS_NO_STACK_CLASH_PROTECTION
> > +	def_bool $(cc-option,-fno-stack-clash-protection)
> > +
> > +config CC_HAS_NO_ADDRSIG
> > +	def_bool $(cc-option,-fno-addrsig)
> 
> I am generally in favor of this proposal since I think these checks
> should be cached by Kconfig where possible to clear up running them
> twice. That said, I wonder if we should pick a better dumping ground for
> these checks other than init/Kconfig. Maybe init/Kconfig.tools or
> scripts/Kconfig.tools or something?

Yes, skimming through the patch, I thought about that, too.  Moving more 
cc option checks to Kconfig will make building out-of-tree kmods with a 
different compiler more dangerous.  Maybe we will have to make the 
warning in Makefile's prepare (external kmods) target a bit louder.

> I also worry about backsliding and growing cc-option checks. Should we
> update the documentation to state that it is preferrable for these
> checks to live in Kconfig so that they can be properly cached?

Sounds good, yes.

-- 
Nicolas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature