[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202003241051.D2CF0F0@keescook>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 10:53:31 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Mauro Rossi <issor.oruam@...il.com>,
Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/changes: Raise minimum supported binutils
version to 2.23
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:37:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 9:28 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> >
> > Are you or Kees going to deal with any fallout from upping the binutils
> > version, rushed in in the last week before the merge window?
>
> I think it's ok. It's not going to cause any _subtle_ failures, it's
> going to cause very clear "oh, now it doesn't build" errors.
>
> No?
>
> And binutils 2.23 is what, 7+ years old by now and apparently had
> known failure cases too.
>
> But if there are silent and subtle failures, that might be a reason to
> be careful. Are there?
FWIW, I have plenty of other hills to die on, so I have no urgency on
this change. I actually thought it had already happened, since it was
brought up a while ago. :) I am just excited to see it happen since it
unblocks other work I've been touching. As long as it's "eventually",
I don't care when. :)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists