linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/hash: fix build failure with older binutils

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: <530B0948020000780011E968@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:56:40 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	<davem@...emloft.net>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <dborkman@...hat.com>, <ffusco@...hat.com>,
	<tgraf@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/hash: fix build failure with older
 binutils

>>> On 21.02.14 at 20:17, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 02/21/2014 06:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 21.02.14 at 13:51, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>> How old?
>> 
>> 2.16.91.0.5 (SLE10)
>> 
> 
> I would *love* to kill off binutils 2.16.  It was a horribly buggy
> version, and it has been hard to deal with keeping things alive with it.
>  How important is this?
> 
> Since this is the first I've heard of this being broken, I am kind of
> encouraged that maybe we can move on?

2.17 doesn't have support for it either, yet has support for fxsaveq
(which you can see in the patch context we check for too). Apart
from that Documentation/Changes continues to state binutils 2.12
to be the minimum requirement...

Jan

--
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/