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  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 <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip: core/objtool] objtool: Fail the kernel build on fatal errors

Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> 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:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/644592d328370af4b3e027b7b1ae9f81613782d8
>> Author:        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
>> AuthorDate:    Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:32:38 -06:00
>> Committer:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
>> 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
tolerable.

> 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
fixed'.

Thanks,

        tglx


Powered by blists - more mailing lists