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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAhV-H5-NhSvHwc4_bEafkrxfi5Aq4ePiHK7PdFkGupSDRDVVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 19:18:18 +0800
From:   Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
To:     Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 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

Hi, Ruoyao,

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 1:04 PM Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site> wrote:
>
> 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.
I think we can assume that we should support old toolchains until Arnd
responds, but again, we can only consider new/new and old/old.
>
> > 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.

$(error, "message") in the Makefile is fine to me,  you can "grep
error arch -rwI | grep Makefile".

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