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  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:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 17:31:41 -0800
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: violating function pointer signature

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:05 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 6:59 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > Linux obviously
> > supports multiple architectures (more than any other OS), but it is pretty
> > stuck to gcc as a compiler (with LLVM just starting to work too).
> >
> > We are fine with being stuck to a compiler if it gives us what we want.
>
> I beg to disagree.
> android, chrome and others changed their kernel builds to
> "make LLVM=1" some time ago.
> It's absolutely vital for the health of the kernel to be built with
> both gcc and llvm.

Our fleet of machines in the data centers is currently mid-ramp, at
around or slightly just over 50% of kernels built with Clang.  Soon to
be 100%.  So "a good chunk of Google services," too, FWIW.

OpenMandriva is on track for their 4.2 release to use LLVM for their kernels.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

Powered by blists - more mailing lists