linux-hardening - RE: [PATCH RFC] gcc-plugins: Handle GCC version mismatch for OOT modules

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]

Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:09:23 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Josh Poimboeuf' <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        "linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Justin Forbes" <jforbes@...hat.com>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC] gcc-plugins: Handle GCC version mismatch for OOT
 modules

From: Josh Poimboeuf
> Sent: 27 January 2021 18:51
> 
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:43:27PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:38:56PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:02:15PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > Please don't add all this garbage.  We only add infrastructure to the
> > > > kernel for what the kernel itself needs, not for weird out of tree
> > > > infrastructure.
> > >
> > > This isn't new, the kernel already has the infrastructure for building
> > > out-of-tree modules.  It's widely used.  Are you suggesting we remove
> > > it?  Good luck with that...
> > >
> > > Either it should be supported, or not.  Make the case either way.  But I
> > > can't understand why people are advocating to leave it half-broken.
> >
> >
> > It is not support as any kind of interface.  It is a little aid for
> > local development.
> 
> Is this a joke?  I've never met anybody who builds OOT modules as a
> development aid...
> 
> On the other hand I know of several very popular distros (some paid,
> some not) who rely on allowing users/partners to build OOT modules as
> part of their ecosystem.  To say it's not supported is a farce.

Indeed there are plenty of companies who provide kernel modules
(wholly or partly in source form) for their customers to build as OOT
modules to install in distro built kernels.

These modules have to compile against everything from RHEL6 (2.6.32 base)
through to the current -rc release.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)