linux-kernel - Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

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, 8 Mar 2017 10:54:07 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> Yeah. At some point we might even upgrade the compiler requirements to
> no longer accept the mcount model.
>
> I think the fentry model is gcc-4.6.0 and up. Currently I guess we
> support gcc-3.2+, which is fairly ridiculous considering that 4.6.0 is
> from March, 2011. So it's over five years ago already.
>
> gcc-3.2.0 is from 2002, I think. At some point you just have to say
> "caring about a 15 year old compiler is ridiculous"
>
> The main reason we have fairly aggressively supported old compilers
> tends to be some odder architectures that don't have good support, so
> people use various random "this works for me" versions.

I thought it was because akpm still used Fedora Core 6. :)

At some point, it would be nice to skip way forward and require a
compiler without the 16-byte-stack-alignment bug, too.

--Andy