Revert "[PATCH] uml: export symbols added by GCC hardened"

This reverts commit cead61a6

.

It exported __stack_smash_handler and __guard, while they may not be
defined by anyone.

The code *declares* __stack_smash_handler and __guard. It does not
create weak symbols. If no external library is linked, they are left
undefined, but yet exported.

If a loadable module tries to access non-existing symbols, bad things
(a page fault, NULL pointer dereference, etc.) will happen. So, the
current code is wrong and dangerous.

If the code were written as follows, it would *define* them as weak
symbols so modules would be able to get access to them.

  void (*__stack_smash_handler)(void *) __attribute__((weak));
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__stack_smash_handler);

  long __guard __attribute__((weak));
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__guard);

In fact, modpost forbids exporting undefined symbols. It shows an error
message if it detects such a mistake.

  ERROR: modpost: "..." [...] was exported without definition

Unfortunately, it is checked only when the code is built as modular.
The problem described above has been unnoticed for a long time because
arch/um/os-Linux/user_syms.c is always built-in.

With a planned change in Kbuild, exporting undefined symbols will always
result in a build error instead of a run-time error. It is a good thing,
but we need to fix the breakage in advance.

One fix is to define weak symbols as shown above. An alternative is to
export them conditionally as follows:

  #ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
  extern void __stack_smash_handler(void *);
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__stack_smash_handler);

  external long __guard;
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__guard);
  #endif

This is what other architectures do; EXPORT_SYMBOL(__stack_chk_guard)
is guarded by #ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR.

However, adding the #ifdef guard is not sensible because UML cannot
enable the stack-protector in the first place! (Please note UML does
not select HAVE_STACKPROTECTOR in Kconfig.)

So, the code is already broken (and unused) in multiple ways.

Just remove.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>