linux-kernel - Re: [v3 03/12] x86/fsgsbase/64: Add intrinsics/macros for FSGSBASE instructions

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:   Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:31:13 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     luto@...nel.org
Cc:     ak@...ux.intel.com, chang.seok.bae@...el.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        markus.t.metzger@...el.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 03/12] x86/fsgsbase/64: Add intrinsics/macros for FSGSBASE instructions

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:14 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:21 PM Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > BTW the other option would be to update the min-binutils requirement
> > to 2.21 (currently it is 2.20) and then write it directly without .byte.
> > I believe 2.21 added support for these instructions.
> >
> > (It's only a binutils requirement, don't need gcc support)
>
> I'd personally be fine with this.  Linus? Thomas? Ingo?

I always vote for "require modern tools" as long as it doesn't cause problems.

binutils-2.21 is something like seven years old by now, but the real
issue would be what versions distros are actually shipping. I don't
want people to have to build their own binutils just to build a
kernel.

It's usually some ancient enterprise distro that is stuck on old
versions. Anybody have any idea?

                 Linus