linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.16 000/132] 3.16.74-rc1 review

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: <13b0e0ced6e9420dc91242dbe85cdf96c06fb645.camel@decadent.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:58:58 +0000
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.16 000/132] 3.16.74-rc1 review

On Sun, 2019-09-22 at 21:26 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 9:04 PM Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> > It looks like this is triggered by you switching arm builds from gcc 8
> > to 9, rather than by any code change.
> > 
> > Does it actually make sense to try to support building Linux 3.16 with
> > gcc 9?  If so, I suppose I'll need to add:
> > 
> > commit edc966de8725f9186cc9358214da89d335f0e0bd
> > Author: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
> > Date:   Fri Aug 2 12:37:56 2019 +0200
> > 
> >     Backport minimal compiler_attributes.h to support GCC 9
> > 
> > commit a6e60d84989fa0e91db7f236eda40453b0e44afa
> > Author: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
> > Date:   Sat Jan 19 20:59:34 2019 +0100
> > 
> >     include/linux/module.h: copy __init/__exit attrs to init/cleanup_module
> 
> Yeah, those should fix it.

A week or two back I tried building 3.16 for x86_64 with gcc 8, which
produced some warnings but did succeed (and I know Guenter successfully
build-tests 3.16 with gcc 8 for many architectures).  However, the
kernel didn't boot on a test system, while the same code built with gcc
4.9 (if I remember correctly) did boot.

While I'm not about to remove support for gcc 8, this makes me think
that there are some not-so-obvious fixes required to make 3.16 properly
compatible with recent gcc versions.  So I would rather not continue
adding superficial support for them, that may lead to people wasting
time building broken kernels.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Theory and practice are closer in theory than in practice - John Levine



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)