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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 16:16:14 +0900 From: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> 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>, 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 Hi Linus, On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:43 AM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> 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. Just a friendly reminder. It will be nice to increase the minimum GCC version to GCC 5.x globally. Now, the version check has been moved to scripts/cc-version.sh, which is invoked from Kconfig. If you decide to do this, please update 'gcc_min_version' in that file. I'd like to suggest GCC 5.2 instead of 5.1 so that we can drop the following line from arch/powerpc/Kconfig. if GCC_VERSION >= 50200 # plugin support on gcc <= 5.1 is buggy on PPC > > 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". > > Linus -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists