linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.7 0/6] 5.7.14-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: <ea90a651-9293-6837-9982-c4a988fd7a03@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 5 Aug 2020 11:27:13 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.7 0/6] 5.7.14-rc1 review

On 8/5/20 11:01 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:39 AM Naresh Kamboju
> <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> [ sorry if it is not interesting ! ]
> 
> It's a bit interesting only because it is so odd.
> 
>> While building with old gcc-7.3.0 the build breaks for arm64
>> whereas build PASS on gcc-8, gcc-9 and gcc-10.
> 
> Can you double-check that your gcc-7.3 setup is actually building the same tree?
> 

I see the same problem. I built images manually, using the same source
tree, so I am quite sure it is the same tree (at least in my case).

> Yeah, I know that's a slightly strange thing to ask, but your build
> log really looks very odd. There should be nothing in that error that
> is in any way compiler version specific.
> 

Same confusion here. I'll be stuck in a meeting for the next hour;
unless someone else figures out what is going on I'll get back
to it afterwards.

Guenter

> Sure, we may have some header that checks the compiler version and
> does something different based on that, and I guess that could be
> going on. Except I don't even find anything remotely like that
> anywhere. I do find some compiler version tests, but most ofd them
> would trigger for all those compiler versions
> 
> Or is there perhaps some other configuration difference?
> 
>              Linus
>