linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation/changes: Raise minimum supported binutils version to 2.23

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:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:01:47 -0400
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "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 05:42:05PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:48:12PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:37:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > 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?
> > 
> > Well, not that I know of and that's why I'm being overly cautious. Maybe
> > too cautious but a lot of hectic testing of last minute fixes in the
> > past have taught me to take my time.
> > 
> > And since it doesn't really matter when the patch goes in - there's
> > always the next merge window - I would prefer to take our time and have
> > it simmer in -next for max period.
> > 
> > So yeah, 2.23 has been tested for a long time now and it is very likely
> > that nothing would happen and if you think it's ok, then sure. Then if
> > you happen to see urgent pull requests with build or some other fixes,
> > at least you'll be prepared. :-)
> > 
> 
> This is just a documentation patch right? Nothing actually changes with
> the build. The only possible thing that we would potentially have to
> deal with is
> 
> (1) people noticing the doc change and complaining that they
> still need to use binutils-2.21 for some reason -- but they can't
> currently build an x86 kernel without patches anyway, so...

The __end_of_kernel_reserve symbol that breaks with the 2.21-2.22
binutils was added in v5.3, so we've already gone 3 kernel versions
without complaints.

> 
> (2) people noticing the doc change and suggesting moving to 2.26 or some
> later version instead of 2.23.