linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: errata: Check for --fix-cortex-a53-843419 and --fix-cortex-a53

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, 2 Nov 2016 14:07:17 -0700
From:   Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@...adcom.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Markus Mayer <code@...yer.net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        ARM Kernel Mailing List 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: errata: Check for --fix-cortex-a53-843419 and --fix-cortex-a53

On 2 November 2016 at 14:03, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:44:14PM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote:
>> From: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
>>
>> The new errata check leads to a warning with some older versions of the
>> linker that do know how to work around the errata, but still use the
>> original name of the command line option: --fix-cortex-a53. The commit
>> in question that changed the name of the option can be found at [1].
>> It looks like only "gold" is affected by this rename. Traditional "ld"
>> isn't. (There, the argument was always called --fix-cortex-a53-843419.)
>>
>> To allow older versions of gold to properly handle the erratum if they
>> can, check whether ld supports the old name of this option in addition
>> to checking the new one.
>>
>> [1] https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=7a2a1c793578a8468604e661dda025ecb8d0bd20;hp=cfbf0e3c5b637d66b2b1aeadecae9c187b825b2f
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
>
> If newer versions of gold accept the correct option name, why do we care?

Because Documentation/Changes states that the minimum requirement for
binutils is 2.12. Right now, that is not really true. And not
everybody can always use the newest toolchain, for various reasons.

The question I am asking is: What do we have to lose by supporting both options?

Thanks,
-Markus