linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] kconfig: support new special property shell=

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1802121125300.1158@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:27:25 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        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>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] kconfig: support new special property shell=

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13:44AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> So the unofficial plan was to enforce asm-goto and -fentry support by
> hard failure to build, which would get us at gcc-4.6 and then remove all

Has gcc-4.6 a (planned) retpoline backport? IIRC the cutoff for that was
gcc 4.9

Thanks,

	tglx