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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 09:18:07 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 23:09, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 1:44 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > So, maybe the Sparc issue was just a similar but different bug in gcc
> > 4.9.x.
>
> Good catch. And I know this bug has happened independently on
> different architectures several times (I remember this on x86-64 as
> well), so I started looking around.
>
> And in fact, 4.9 was buggy on x86-64 too:
>
>     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61904
>
> And yeah, _that_ gcc bug wasn't actually x86-64 specific, but
> apparently a generic instruction scheduling bug.
>
> So it's an independent bug, but I do have to admit that the arguments
> against 4.9 are piling up (even if that particular fix apparently got
> fixed in the gcc branches and apparently backported to distro
> compilers too).
>

So if the arguments are piling up, what is holding us back, other than
inertia? RHEL 7 used to be a factor, but it ships with 4.8 not 4.9, so
its users already need to upgrade. Is anyone aware of a good reason to
keep 4.9 supported? Are any other long term supported distros using
4.9.x?

I know that distros probably backported fixes for all of these issues,
but without a way to interrogate the compiler about this, that doesn't
really make a difference IMHO.

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.

 --
Ard.