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: <529aef7c-30b1-f6c5-4610-34bd869e4ad4@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 14:26:18 +0200
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2



Le 04/05/2021 à 14:17, Michal Suchánek a écrit :
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
>>> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
>>> answer.
>>
>> Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
>> a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
>> build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
>> problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
>> also be welcome.
> 
> Yes, bisecting comes to mind. If you need to switch the userspace as
> well the bisection results are not that solid. You may not be even able
> to bisect because the workload does not exist on a new system at all.
> Crafting a minimal test case that can be forward-ported to a new system
> is not always trivial - if you understood the problem to that extent you
> might not even need to bisect it in the first place.
> 

But you don't need to switch the userspace or the complete build tools to build a kernel with a 
newer toolchain.

All you have to do is take one from https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

I'm doing everything under CentOS 6, and using one of those tools allows me to build latest kernel 
without breaking anything else.