linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: simplify GCC plugin-dev capability test

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: <95ce88c6-59bd-55b9-9299-51fa20aeb95c@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:33:37 +0000
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Emese Revfy" <re.emese@...il.com>,
        <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Nathan Chancellor" <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: simplify GCC plugin-dev capability test


On 18/12/2020 17:54, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:33 AM Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com> wrote:
>>
>> However, if you are saying that this is a problem/bug with our builders,
>> then of course we will have to get this fixed.
> 
> This seems to be a package dependency problem with the gcc plugins -
> they clearly want libgmp, but apparently the package hasn't specified
> that dependency.
> 
> If this turns out to be a big problem, I guess we can't simplify the
> plugin check after all.
> 
> We historically just disabled gcc-plugins if that header didn't build,
> which obviously meant that it "worked" for people, but it also means
> that clearly the coverage can't have been as good as it could/should
> be.
> 
> So if it's as simple as just installing the GNU multiprecision
> libraries ("gmp-devel" on most rpm-based systems, "libgmp-dev" on most
> debian systems), then I think that's the right thing to do. You'll get
> a working build again, and equally importantly, your build servers
> will actually do a better job of covering the different build options.


Thanks. I have reported this issue to the team that administers the
builders. So hopefully, they will install the necessary packages for us
now.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic