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:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:37:19 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: fix gcc 11 indigestion with plugins...

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 07:31:17AM -0500, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 05:56:59 -0500, I said:
> 
> > > It's probably related. I'm just having a hard time understanding why 4.9 and 5.4
> > > whine about the lack of a space, while 8.3 and 11 didn't complain...
> 
> So after more digging, at least some clarity has surfaced.
> 
> It looks like it's not a kernel source tree issue, it's a g++ issue fixed in g++ 6 and later.
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69959
> 
> And it looks like there was an intent to backport it to 4.9 and 5.4:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01409.html
> 
> The bugtracker doesn't show an equivalent for 69959 being closed against 4.9.x or 5.[56],
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63254 has a patch for one of the
> gcc-supplied files that tosses the warning, but that way lies madness...
> 
> Not sure what we want to do here - the main alternatives I see are:
> 
> Tell people still using 4.9/5.4 to either live with the warning or upgrade to 6 or later
> 
> Make the flag a variable and pass either -std=gnu++98 or -std=gnu++11
> depending on the output of 'g++ --version'
> 
> What say the peanut gallery?

I think putting the flag in a variable (based on call cc-ifversion)
should be easy enough, then we can put this little saga behind us and
pretend it never happened :-)

-- 
Josh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists