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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:00:32 -0700 From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> To: joe@...ches.com Cc: asmadeus@...ewreck.org, 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, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:45 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > 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 ? Yes, but I have a local llvm tree that I work out of, that's in my $PATH, so my version of clang is never too far behind Top of Tree. For android, we're using clang-5, but currently staging an upgrade to clang 6.0.1. > So if something other than 6.0.x is required, > then some additional check should probably be > added to compiler-clang.h as well. > Sure, but that doesn't need to go in Mashiro's patch today. That can wait for a proper separation between compiler headers where we can then implement improved version checks. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists