linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Compiler Attributes: naked can be shared

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: <CAMuHMdXfSOxigSkV2Ui2akpUoSrkFu3HyVoJiQyTbZY0kGpRWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:49:58 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     asmadeus@...ewreck.org
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda Sandonis <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        efriedma@...eaurora.org, Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Compiler Attributes: naked can be shared

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:37 AM Dominique Martinet
<asmadeus@...ewreck.org> wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Thu, Sep 20, 2018:
> > "Fixes:" is not just for stable, we use it wherever we have a patch that
> > we know fixes a problem introduced in another patch.
> >
> > For this instance, I think we should just revert the offending patch,
> > which should resolve the issue for everyone and then you can try to redo
> > your series to get it right the next time.
> >
> > Sound good?
>
> Except that 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h
> mutually exclusive") itself fixes cafa0010cd51 ("Raise the minimum
> required gcc version to 4.6"), which breaks clang altogether (as used by
> example by bcc for most BPF programs, that I caught before -rc1 got
> released so we got both in rc1)
>
> I'm not aware of anything that would break if both were to be reverted,
> I have no opinion on which way to go.

I guess reverting them makes no difference for gcc >= 4.6.

For older compilers (which were declared unsupported by cafa0010cd51),
you also need
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180814160208.4f4dd7ca142912f5894ddddd@linux-foundation.org/

Been there, done that, happy gcc-4.1.2 ;-)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds