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: <CA+55aFyDZQhBQKLjYP5F7xfONRuu8m+aDXeRXZvk=8kb-+N1Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:52:28 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>, joe@....org,
        daniel.santos@...ox.com, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
        Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        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 1:36 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:28 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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?

It's effectively for the whole kernel right now. See:

    https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180814170904.GA12768@roeck-us.net/

although it might be fixable. Nobody really *wants* to fix it, though,
because we've had that initializer issue before too, and various other
issues with old gcc versions.

So we have long had reasons why we'd _want_ to upgrade to at least gcc-4.6

The "we support gcc-3.2" in Documentation/process/changes.rst is
complete fantasy.

              Linus