linux-kernel - Re: gcc 5 & 6 & others already out of date?

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]

Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:16:20 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: gcc 5 & 6 & others already out of date?

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 10:37:21AM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

> Regarding "one extreme to the other", I suspect that in spite of my
> arguments, which would seem to justify an extreme, the actual thing I
> suggested is a bit more moderate: let's support the latest 2 or 3 gccs
> at the time of kernel release. If we choose 3, that's roughly 3 years of
> gccs, right? 3 years seems like a fairly long amount of time.

I was looking at your suggestion there - as a Debian user that feels a
touch enthusiastic (though practically probably not actually a problem)
since it's not too far off the release cadence, current Debian is at GCC
10 and we're not due for another release till sometime next year which
will be right on the three years.  There does also seem to be a
contingent of people running enterprise distros managed by an IT
department or whatever who may take a while to get round to pushing out
new versions so for example might still for example be running Ubuntu
20.04 rather than 22.04 (never mind the people I know are sitting on
18.04 but that's another thing).  

If we went for three years extreme would probably be an overstatment but
it's definitely an active push.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (485 bytes)