linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/18] kbuild: move gcc-version.sh to cc-version.sh and add clang support

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, 15 Nov 2017 14:06:14 -0800
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/18] kbuild: move gcc-version.sh to cc-version.sh
 and add clang support

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:48:52PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> It might make sense to split this patch: do the move and refactoring,
> then add clang support.

Sure.

> Though, won't this confuse some tests? A lot of cc-version tests are
> expecting only gcc, yes?

There's already a chance of this happening with cc-version. Currently,
gcc-version.sh returns 0402 for clang 5.0, which probably doesn't have
the same issues as gcc 4.2 did.

While I didn't see anything new that would break on platforms that
clang can currently compile, you're correct, we should probably have a
macro that also checks for the compiler, or have separate macros for
different compilers.

I'll address these in v3.

Sami