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  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:   Tue, 21 Aug 2018 09:45:28 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, asmadeus@...ewreck.org
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, dwmw@...zon.co.uk,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: get back Clang build

On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 09:32 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:38 AM Dominique Martinet
> <asmadeus@...ewreck.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Nick Desaulniers Aug. 21, 2018, 8:09 a.m. UTC:
> > > Thanks for noticing, and sending this patch.  I'm happy to see others
> > > testing with Clang.  I noticed this too near the end of the day
> > > https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/27.
> > 
> > FWIW libbcc so many BPF users also use clang, so this has more impact
> > than just testing to build linux with clang (not that this would be any
> > reason to delay fixing either way)
> > 
> > I would tend to agree havin a compiler-common + make clang/intel not
> > include compiler-gcc would probably be best in the long run but we might
> > want a quick fix for 4.19 meanwhile..
> 
> That's fair. SOP here is quick (full) revert, then come up with a
> better fix.  And I do prefer Masahiro's partial revert to a full
> revert of Joe's patch.  That will give us more time to develop the
> proper fix rather than rush.  I'll try to see how we can more properly
> split the compiler specific headers.
> 
> Tested with gcc-7 and clang-8.

clang-8? Isn't the latest officlal clang 6.0.1 ?

http://releases.llvm.org/

vs

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html

So if something other than 6.0.x is required,
then some additional check should probably be
added to compiler-clang.h as well.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists