[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202405082312.D922795@keescook>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 23:16:32 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Chris Kennelly <ckennelly@...gle.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Rui Salvaterra <rsalvaterra@...il.com>,
Victor Stinner <vstinner@...hat.com>,
Jan Palus <jpalus@...tmail.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] selftests/exec: Build both static and non-static
load_address tests
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 07:54:13PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> Didn't we learn recently, though, that -static-pie is gcc 8.1+, while the
> kernel's minimum gcc version is 5?
Yes, that's true. If we encounter anyone trying to build the selftests
with <8.1 I think we'll have to add a compiler version test in the
Makefile to exclude the static pie tests.
There's also the potential issue with arm64 builds that caused the
original attempt at -static. We'll likely need an exclusion there too.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists