linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] gcc-plugins: always build plugins with C++

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, 28 Mar 2018 04:29:26 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] gcc-plugins: always build plugins with C++

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> If the target compiler is GCC 4.8 or newer, plugins are compiled with
> HOSTCXX.  Otherwise, gcc-plugin.sh will select HOSTCC or HOSTCXX.
>
> To simplify things, drop the HOSTCC support for plugins.  If you use
> GCC plugins, the requirement for the target compiler is GCC 4.8 (or
> older compiler with necessary features backported).  This is a feature
> for advanced users, so this requirement would not be a big deal.
> Currently, building plugins requires GCC 4.5, so this is not a big jump.

Emese already NAKed this, and I'd agree. 4.5 to 4.8 is quite a jump
(see all the threads on minimum gcc versions). Until we're at 4.8 as a
minimum, let's leave this as-is. "To simply things" doesn't seem like
a good enough reason to me.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security