[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFz3gUKQMr-X-b=ytLPX0AjGUaXNtLSUQ0_xZwZuDU33RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:13:44 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@...il.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] kconfig: support new special property shell=
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> - How common are those broken compilers?
>
> I *thought* it was rare (i.e. gcc 4.2) but while working on ..._AUTO I
> found breakage in akpm's 4.4 gcc, and all of Arnd's gccs due to some
> very strange misconfiguration between the gcc build environment and
> other options. So, it turns out this is unfortunately common. The good
> news is that it does NOT appear to happen with most distro compilers,
> though I've seen Android's compiler regress the global vs %gs at least
> once about a year ago.
Hmm. Ok, so it's not *that* common, and won't affect normal people.
That actually sounds like we could just
(a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required version
(b) actually error out if we find a bad compiler
Upgrading the minimum required gcc version to 4.5 is pretty much going
to happen _anyway_, because we're starting to rely on "asm goto" for
avoiding speculation.
End result: maybe we can make the configuration phase just use the
standard "does gcc support this flag" logic, and then just have a
separate script that is run to validate that gcc doesn't generate
garbage, and error out loudly if it does.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists