linux-kernel - Re: Urgent: x86-32 and GNU ld 2.22.52.0.1

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: <4FB69A75.30507@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 May 2012 11:52:37 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Urgent: x86-32 and GNU ld 2.22.52.0.1

On 05/18/2012 11:41 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:51:44AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/18/2012 09:50 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> A small testcase:
>>>
>>
>> Right, but we can equally well just let the postprocessing tool throw an
>> error.
> 
> That would probably be the best thing to do right now, and we can
> backport that to the stable kernel releases also to ensure they work
> properly.
> 

So the question is: do you want to simply take the patches from the
trampoline branch (which are reasonably tested) or do a minimal backport
which only throws an error (which would not be)?

	-hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/