linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

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: <CANiq72mk84uay--BWOLT4zF12-rat9erohKazB8SpTPoVCTX1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 10:38:32 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> gcc releases :(

In those scenarios, why do you need to build mainline? Aren't your
customers using longterm or frozen kernels? If they are paying for
certified GCC images, aren't they already paying for supported kernel
images from some vendor too?

I understand where you are coming from -- I have also dealt with
projects/machines running ancient, unsupported software/toolchains for
various reasons; but nobody expected upstream (and in particular the
mainline kernel source) to support them. In the cases I experienced,
those use cases require not touching anything at all, and when the
time came of doing so, everything would be updated at once,
re-certified/validated as needed and frozen again.

Cheers,
Miguel