linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: get back Clang build

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Aug 2018 21:22:22 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
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 Wed, 2018-08-22 at 06:16 +0200, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> I think that could work, but at the point making a separate
> compiler-common.h and not including compiler-gcc.h for clang sounds
> better to me... More importantly here, either solution sound complex
> enough to require more than a few days and proper testing for all archs
> etc when compared to the partial revert we have here.

The immediate need for a partial revert seems unnecessary as
clang hasn't really worked for a couple releases now.

The separate compiler file changes are much more sensible,
even if it takes a few days.