[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jK7sCK=x8=jVXXYadATf6k7L7ijNS-4oMSRqKtzov_jag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:11:53 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 11:53 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> This made akpm and Arnd very very grumpy as it regressed their builds.
>> That's why I had to deal with the condition very carefully for _AUTO.
>
> Well, Arnd build new cross-tools last week, probably because you
> really need new tools for other reasons anyway (ie all the spectre
> mitigation). So I think Arnd is set.
>
> And akpm being on some ancient stone age system has been an issue
> before. The only way to fix it is to break it.
I don't seem to be the one that can declare such things, which is why
I pulled _AUTO out of -mm before the 4.15 merge window. It was
breaking akpm and Arnd, which seemed like a serious problem,
especially since you've yelled about how it's very bad to break
builds, etc.
> What I would worry about primarily is not one of the odd developers
> who can upgrade, but random people in the wild. I don't want to lose
> the occasional odd tester that does things nobody else does.
>
> But with gcc-4.5 being 7+ years old, I can't imagine it's a huge issue.
You have no objection from me at all on this. I have been yelled at
repeatedly (unjustly in this thread even) for "forcing options" on
people. I worked very hard to NOT break people with this, so it didn't
seem like a good plan to knowingly break builds. (And the other
options, _REGULAR and _STRONG, _do_ actually break the build if you
have a broken compiler. But for _AUTO, that seemed like a very bad
idea. I could only imagine the flames.)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists