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:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:54:45 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Jon Hunter <>
Cc:     Marek Szyprowski <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Emese Revfy <>,,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        clang-built-linux <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        linux-tegra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: simplify GCC plugin-dev capability test

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:33 AM Jon Hunter <> wrote:
> However, if you are saying that this is a problem/bug with our builders,
> then of course we will have to get this fixed.

This seems to be a package dependency problem with the gcc plugins -
they clearly want libgmp, but apparently the package hasn't specified
that dependency.

If this turns out to be a big problem, I guess we can't simplify the
plugin check after all.

We historically just disabled gcc-plugins if that header didn't build,
which obviously meant that it "worked" for people, but it also means
that clearly the coverage can't have been as good as it could/should

So if it's as simple as just installing the GNU multiprecision
libraries ("gmp-devel" on most rpm-based systems, "libgmp-dev" on most
debian systems), then I think that's the right thing to do. You'll get
a working build again, and equally importantly, your build servers
will actually do a better job of covering the different build options.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists