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: <9B7AFB33-E930-44F4-B5AE-1414B3E9A56A@meta.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:47:51 +0000
From: Nick Terrell <terrelln@...a.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "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



> On Mar 25, 2025, at 6:18 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> * Nick Terrell <terrelln@...a.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 21, 2025, at 8:16 AM, 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.
>> 
>> Thanks for the report & proposed fix!
>> 
>> If you can test gcc-11.0, that would be great, otherwise we could just
>> cut off at (__GNUC__ >= 12 || (__GNUC__ == 11 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 4))
>> 
>> I am preparing the zstd-v1.5.7 update, and I will pull a patch that 
>> fixes this into my tree. If someone wants to submit a patch I'll pull 
>> that, otherwise I can submit one later today.
> 
> The proper cutoff would be GCC 11.1, not 11.4, as per the testing of 
> Michael Kelley, right?

Sorry, I didn't quite realize that the [tip: x86/core] was a commit. I'll drop
my patch, and just make sure that the fix is preserved in the zstd-v1.5.7
upgrade.

Best,
Nick Terrell

> Thanks,
> 
> Ingo