linux-kernel - Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc 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]

Message-ID: <20180223171019.GA1125@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:10:19 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, Chen Liqin <liqin.linux@...il.com>,
        Lennox Wu <lennox.wu@...il.com>,
        Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>, linux-metag@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
        Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 03:43:16PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Regarding the older architectures I mentioned (m32r, frv, mn10300),
> > the situation is a bit different as they don't have the problems with
> > build testing but they do have problems with using less of the
> > standard interfaces (syscall, timer, gpio, rtc, ...), so they do add
> > more to the maintenance burden without the nostalgia value of
> > some of the even older architectures (parisc, alpha, m68k, ia64)
> > that people maintain mainly for fun.
> 
> IMHO the magic word is 'maintain'. If someone is actively maintaining it
> then I don't think we should care too much, if not then while the code
> may be buildable on current systems does anyone honestly think it works
> properly if used in anger ?
> 

FWIW, alpha and m68k are known boot with qemu (even though m68k
generates a warning traceback with the mainline kernel).

Guenter