linux-kernel - Re: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review

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: <Ybo2lbHVaASDyAcC@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:40:21 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     chris.paterson2@...esas.com, alice.ferrazzi@...aclelinux.com,
        nobuhiro1.iwamatsu@...hiba.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1
 review

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 07:32:23PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.86 release.
> > There are 33 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > let me know.
> 
> I'm getting the gmp.h failures :-(.
> 
> https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/pipelines/430434332
> 
> I believe we should not change build requirements in the middle of
> stable series.
> 
> To our testing team: 5.10.85 introduced new requirements for the
> build. gmp.h is now required in our configs, and maybe something else.
> 
> Easiest fix might be to add
> 
> # CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS is not set
> 
> to our configs. Alternatively I know which patch to revert.
> 
> But I believe -stable should be the one doing the revert, as the patch
> does not fix serious bug and introduces problem. Faster compile is
> nice but let mainline have those kind of changes.

But that commit is needed to get gcc11 plugins to work with the 5.10.y
kernel tree.  So either we "break" it for old and obsolete gcc versions
(i.e. gcc7), or newer supported versions break.

We are not in the business of keeping older versions of gcc always
working, right?

thanks,

greg k-h