linux-ext4 - Re: Aarch64 EXT4FS inode checksum failures - seems to be weak memory ordering issues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <X/c2aqSvYCaB9sR6@mit.edu>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:27:22 -0500
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Aarch64 EXT4FS inode checksum failures - seems to be weak memory
 ordering issues

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 01:37:47PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > The gcc bugzilla mentions backports into gcc-linaro, but I do not see
> > them in my git history.
> 
> So, do we raise the minimum gcc version for the kernel as a whole to 5.1
> or just for aarch64?

Russell, Arnd, thanks so much for tracking down the root cause of the
bug!

I will note that RHEL 7 uses gcc 4.8.  I personally don't have an
objections to requiring developers using RHEL 7 to have to install a
more modern gcc (since I use Debian Testing and gcc 10.2.1, myself,
and gcc 5.1 is so five years ago :-), but I could imagine that being
considered inconvenient for some.

						- Ted