[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210128142952.GA2041496@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:29:52 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] gcc-plugins: Handle GCC version mismatch for OOT
modules
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:51:13PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Is this a joke? I've never met anybody who builds OOT modules as a
> development aid...
I'm pretty sure you've met me before.
> On the other hand I know of several very popular distros (some paid,
> some not) who rely on allowing users/partners to build OOT modules as
> part of their ecosystem. To say it's not supported is a farce.
This is not a farce. The kernel only supports infrastructure for the
kernel itself, not for any external consumers. If you have a business
model that relies on something else you should think hard if you are in
the right business.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists