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
| ||
|
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists