linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] compiler.h: give up __compiletime_assert

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: <CAKwvOdk_-vfy7f7PKUELm=FHz9aBKMdbvoMv+5_o9K7jSCG+cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:36:39 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        james.hogan@...tec.com, joe@....org, daniel.santos@...ox.com,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, sparse@...isli.org,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        George Burgess <gbiv@...gle.com>,
        James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] compiler.h: give up __compiletime_assert_fallback()

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:28 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:25 PM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> > _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> > but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
> >
> > I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG should use
> > _Static_assert, then have fallbacks for gcc < 4.6.
>
> Well, it turns out that we effectively stopped supporting gcc < 4.6
> during this merge window for other reasons, so..

For the whole kernel (or just a particular arch)?  Which commit?  Do
we keep track of minimal versions somewhere?
Documentation/process/changes.rst mentions gcc 3.2 (eek), but I assume
there's a compiler version check somewhere (if you're using gcc and
it's version is less than X, abort. Ditto for clang.)
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers