netdev - Re: [patch 1/1] kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c: work around gcc-4.4.4 anon union initialization bug

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]

Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:38:27 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c: work around gcc-4.4.4 anon
 union initialization bug

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:38:02AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Alexei,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:33:07PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:50:58PM -0700, akpm@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> >>From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> >>Subject: kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c: work around gcc-4.4.4 anon union initialization bug
> >>
> >>kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c: In function 'bpf_event_output':
> >>kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:312: error: unknown field 'next' specified in initializer
> >>kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:312: warning: missing braces around initializer
> >>kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:312: warning: (near initialization for 'raw.frag.<anonymous>')
> >>
> >>Fixes: 555c8a8623a3a87 ("bpf: avoid stack copy and use skb ctx for event output")
> >>Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> >>Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> >>Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> >>Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> >
> >Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> >
> >Fengguang can you add gcc-4.4 to buildbot. Thanks!
> 
> Sure. Currently we only test gcc-6. It'd be easy to test more versions
> concurrently, like
> 
> gcc-4.4
> gcc-4.6
> gcc-4.8
> gcc-4.9
> gcc-5
> gcc-6

thanks! If you need to reduce the test matrix I don't see a concern
of dropping 4.6 and 4.8.
4.4 is good for old stuff, 4.9 is the most stable and 5/6 are good
for new warnings.