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: <87r1mwy95m.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 07 Jan 2021 18:00:21 +0100
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        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

* Theodore Ts'o:

> 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.

Actually, RHEL 7 should have the fix (internal bug #1362635, curiously
we encountered it in the *XFS* CRC calculation code back then).

My understanding is that RHEL 7 aarch64 support ceased completely about
a month ago, so that shouldn't be an argument against bumping the
minimum version requirement to 5.1.

Thanks,
Florian
-- 
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill