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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 01:10:26 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf <>
Cc:, Borislav Petkov <>,
        Julien Thierry <>, x86 <>,
        LKML <>
Subject: Re: [tip: core/objtool] objtool: Fail the kernel build on fatal errors

Josh Poimboeuf <> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:47:38PM -0000, tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> The following commit has been merged into the core/objtool branch of tip:
>> Commit-ID:     644592d328370af4b3e027b7b1ae9f81613782d8
>> Gitweb:
>> Author:        Josh Poimboeuf <>
>> AuthorDate:    Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:32:38 -06:00
>> Committer:     Borislav Petkov <>
>> CommitterDate: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:27:03 +01:00
>> objtool: Fail the kernel build on fatal errors
>> When objtool encounters a fatal error, it usually means the binary is
>> corrupt or otherwise broken in some way.  Up until now, such errors were
>> just treated as warnings which didn't fail the kernel build.
>> However, objtool is now stable enough that if a fatal error is
>> discovered, it most likely means something is seriously wrong and it
>> should fail the kernel build.
>> Note that this doesn't apply to "normal" objtool warnings; only fatal
>> ones.
> Clang still has some toolchain issues which need to be sorted out, so
> upgrading the fatal errors is causing their CI to fail.

Good. Last time we made it fail they just fixed their stuff.

> So I think we need to drop this one for now.

Why? It's our decision to define which level of toolchain brokeness is

> Boris, are you able to just drop it or should I send a revert?

I really want to see a revert which has a proper justification why the
issues of clang are tolerable along with a clear statement when this
fatal error will come back. And 'when' means a date, not 'when clang is



Powered by blists - more mailing lists