linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants"

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: <20180710093615.GA30095@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:36:16 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Paul Kocialkowski <contact@...lk.fr>
Cc:     Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation
 mode variants"

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:30:39AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 10:01 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Thanks, Laura.
> > 
> > I'll take this as a fix, and add a comment to the Makefile to justify
> > why we need the linux target.
> 
> So this comes down to either breaking fedora/debian toolchains (that
> don't support elf emulation mode) or breaking bare-metal toolchains
> (that don't support linux emulation mode).
> 
> Since Linux is a bare-metal project that does not technically require
> the linux target (who said using "Linux" for all things is confusing?),
> I think it should aim for the elf target in the long term.
> 
> But well, breaking Linux build in common distros isn't good either, so I
> guess it makes sense to revert this while distros toolchains are being
> fixed. Hopefully, it won't take too long.
> 
> What do you think?

Yes, we need to revert the change since it's a regression otherwise. I think
the best course of action here would be to find a way that we can either
tell the linker that it doesn't need the missing linker scripts because
we're providing our own, or find a way to pass different LD flags depending
on whether or not we have a linux toolchain.

For now, I've pushed the revert to for-next/fixes.

Will