linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] selftests: Handle old glibc without execveat(2)

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: <20250119195706.GB1824045@ax162>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:57:06 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack3000@...il.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
	Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>,
	Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
	Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] selftests: Handle old glibc without execveat(2)

On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 04:47:05PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 03:42:22PM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
> > Do you want to add a comment next to these, to remind ourselves do undo this?
> > You are surely not planning to support old versions of glibc indefinitely?
> 
> I don't about glibc.  Minimal versions for other tools are documented
> here though:
> https://docs.kernel.org/process/changes.html
> 
> Nathan, Jon, any idea?

I do not know if the idea of setting a minimum supported version of a
libc has ever come up before (at least I am unaware of one). I suspect
most people do a patch like this then move on because it is the
maximally compatible option and these samples are not changing much, are
they? This is the first build error I can recall seeing as a result of
using an older glibc environment. If we would like to seriously consider
setting a minimum supported version of glibc, it deserves a conversation
with a wider audience since it could impact areas other than the
samples, such as host tools (and IMHO, feels like a big hammer).

Cheers,
Nathan