[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161104161048.GG19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 16:10:48 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sven Joachim <svenjoac@....de>,
Tomas Janousek <tomi@...i.cz>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
doko@...ian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kbuild: add -fno-PIE
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-11-04 15:54:27 [+0000], Al Viro wrote:
> > Christoph, would you mind rereading what I posted upthread? I *am* aware of
> > that clusterfuck, including the Balint's charming games with the reassignments,
> > etc. Directly affected by the whole mess, actually.
>
> Al, I am re-doing the patch with a runtime check for -fno-PIE and
> tagging it stable and looking after Ben's fstack protector thingy.
> This should allow you to compile maintained stable kernels but it won't
> allow you to bisect to prior versions.
> I don't see any other way around it.
And I don't see any way around severity:important against gcc-6. Unless the
policy has changed, "has a major effect on the usability of a package, without
rendering it completely unusable to everyone" still warrants that. And
kernel development (including bisects) has, until now, been consdered
a normal use of gcc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists