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, 14 Jan 2021 16:30:45 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        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 13:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:52 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> What was the argument for jumping all the way to gcc-7.1?
> 
> I do think we want to have real reasons we can point to, rather than a
> "just because".

KASAN v5 instead of all the old versions
gcc 7.1 supports fallthrough.

Probably more, but those might be sufficient.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists