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 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]

Date:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 10:21:54 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        "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>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Aarch64 EXT4FS inode checksum failures - seems to be weak memory
 ordering issues

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:20:38PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:37 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin

> > So, do we raise the minimum gcc version for the kernel as a whole to 5.1
> > or just for aarch64?
> 
> I'd personally love to see gcc-5 as the global minimum version, as that
> would let us finally use --std=gnu11 features instead of gnu89. [There are
> a couple of useful features that are incompatible with gnu89, and
> gnu99/gnu11 support in gcc didn't like the kernel sources]

+1 for raising the tree-wide minimum (again!). We actually have a bunch
of work-arounds for 4.9 bugs we can get rid of as well.