linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] LoongArch: Support toolchain with new relocation types

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]

Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:03:58 +0800
From:   Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
        Youling Tang <tangyouling@...ngson.cn>,
        Jinyang He <hejinyang@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] LoongArch: Support toolchain with new relocation
 types

On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 12:33 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > If we'll drop support for old GCC/Binutils, we can drop patch 5 (it's
> > only needed for the combination of old GCC and new Binutils).  Then
> > squash 4 and 7.  8 should still be standalone IMO.

> Whether we can drop old toolchains depends on Arnd. :)

I'd like to prepare V6 after we can make a final decision.

> But even if we should support old toolchains, I think we only need to
> consider new binutils + new gcc and old binutils + old gcc, I don't
> think new binutils + old gcc and old binutils + new gcc can exist in
> the real world.

Generally, how do we report an unsupported configuration in kernel
building system?  With a $(error, "message") in the Makefile, or in some
header with a #error?  I don't want to leave an unsupported
configuration silently generating modules which can't be loaded by the
kernel.

-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University