linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc-plugins: Explicitly document purpose and deprecation schedule

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202110201212.C155FE92@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:12:46 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Dan Li <ashimida@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc-plugins: Explicitly document purpose and
 deprecation schedule

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 07:44:19PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 7:35 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > +Purpose
> > +=======
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> >  config GCC_PLUGIN_SANCOV
> >         bool
> > +       # Plugin can be removed once the kernel only supports GCC 6.1.0+
> 
> Since we are just giving the major in the other cases below, I would
> just say GCC 6+ here (the numbering scheme changed in GCC 5 already).

Sure; now updated.

> Thanks for adding the versions, by the way -- this is useful long-term
> and not always done for other things...

Yeah, I always struggled to find when options were added to GCC, so I
wanted this for my poor brain too. :)

> Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>

Thanks!

-- 
Kees Cook