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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAK7LNATf6DEyk=SPouHDO6f4Na0bm3HY7_7Cn4Quq6weg_6uFA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 04:01:19 +0900 From: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> Cc: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>, 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 Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:48 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:33:37PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > > 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. > > Just to close the loop on this, the builders now have libgmp-dev and > libmpc-dev packages installed and the builds are passing without the > workaround we had used. > > Thierry I was slightly concerned about your question: "In case where CC != HOSTCC, it's possible that CC was not built against the same version of GMP/MPC as HOSTCC. And even HOSTCC might not necessarily have been built against the versions provided by libgmp-dev or libmpc-dev. I'm not overly familiar with GMP/MPC, so perhaps if these headers are reasonably stable, this is not all that important. But if it is, then which version of GMP/MPC do we need? The version that CC was built against, or the version that HOSTCC was built against?" I do not have a good insight about this. I am not sure if it is perfectly OK to use gmp.h from HOSTCC when it was not bundled with CC. The version difference might not be a significant issue, though... -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists