linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/12] external array access helpers

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: <d0d19205-bc73-7206-da1c-7cc2e42d8701@oracle.com>
Date:   Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:05:22 +0200
From:   Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] external array access helpers

On 10/16/2016 06:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:16:04PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The first two patches in the series fix the concrete bug (a boot crash
>> when using gcc 7.0+) by defining new wrappers for arrays defined in
>> linker scripts. These two patches should probably go into the kernel +
>> stable as soon as people are happy with the new interface. Not sure who
>> would pick this up, Greg maybe?
>
> Ugh, that's messy, but nice fixup.  I can take these in my tree.  I'd
> like to get others to review them first, but I can queue them up in a
> week or so if there is no objections.

Thanks!

> Is gcc 7.0 "stable" enough that people will start to be using it soon?

Well, it seems like Jiri and I both ran into the firmware thing
independently.

gcc 7 is not actually released yet, so I guess my message above is
slightly misleading.

gcc 6 seems to have released about a year after development started
and gcc 7 development started in April, so I guess there's still quite a
lot of time before it's officially out.

Although the NetBSD people seemed to have run into the same issue using
GCC 5.4, I'm not sure what to make of that.


Vegard