linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] compiler.h: Raise minimum version of GCC to 5.1 for arm64

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: <fd3f26b7a70d3b90f1368c55532e463ef2fb9fa4.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 11:51:53 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler.h: Raise minimum version of GCC to 5.1 for
 arm64

On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 10:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:18 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > So if the arguments are piling up, what is holding us back, other than
> > inertia?
> 
> I think we can most certainly just try increasing the minimum version
> to 5.1 in the next merge window and see.
> 
> > Note that banning 4.9 for arm64 and banning it in general should be
> > two different changes in any case, as the former will need to be
> > backported to -stable kernels as well.
> 
> Yes. The arm64 issue is a clear and known bug, plus I suspect gcc-4.9
> is ridiculously old in the arm64 ecosystem anyway.
> 
> So the arm64 issue is a bug-fix, the follow-up of just upgrading gcc
> requirements in general would be a "keep up with the times, and allow
> those variable declarations in loops".

Given the upgrade requirement, and how clang version requirements
constantly change, how much more difficult would it be for others
to use gcc 7.1 or higher now instead of later?