linux-kernel - Re: Compile problems w/gcc 9.4.0 in linux-next

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: <Z95oip1UjPofpHUq@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:36:42 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, "terrelln@...com" <terrelln@...com>,
	"dsterba@...e.com" <dsterba@...e.com>,
	"brgerst@...il.com" <brgerst@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Compile problems w/gcc 9.4.0 in linux-next


* Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com> wrote:

> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 12:38 AM
> > 
> > * Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > What are your thoughts as maintainers of lib/zstd?
> > >
> > > FYI, the same segfault occurs with gcc 10.5. The problem is fixed
> > > in gcc 11.4.
> > 
> > So the patch below would work this around on GCC9 and GCC10?
> 
> I've confirmed that the patch gives a clean compile with gcc 9.4.
> 
> Note that I confirmed yesterday that the gcc problem is fixed with
> 11.4. I don't know about earlier gcc 11 minor versions. Lemme see
> if I can get the original gcc 11 release and try that to confirm that
> your patch has the right version cutoff.

Thank you for the testing!

> > +++ b/lib/zstd/common/portability_macros.h
> > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
> >  #ifndef DYNAMIC_BMI2
> >    #if ((defined(__clang__) && __has_attribute(__target__)) \
> >        || (defined(__GNUC__) \
> > -          && (__GNUC__ >= 5 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 8)))) \
> > +          && (__GNUC__ >= 11))) \
> >        && (defined(__x86_64__) || defined(_M_X64)) \
> >        && !defined(__BMI2__)
> >    #  define DYNAMIC_BMI2 1

Worst case, if it isn't, I suppose we'll get followup bug reports.

Thanks,

	Ingo