Hi Linus,
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:43 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:18 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > So if the arguments are piling up, what is holding us back, other than
> > inertia?
>
> I think we can most certainly just try increasing the minimum version
> to
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 4:30 PM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> KASAN v5 instead of all the old versions
> gcc 7.1 supports fallthrough.
Considering that most people won't even enable KASAN, I think that's
not a huge reason to then force people to potentially upgrade their
compilers.
That said, I do
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 13:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:52 AM Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > Given the upgrade requirement, and how clang version requirements
> > constantly change, how much more difficult would it be for others
> > to use gcc 7.1 or higher now instead
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:52 AM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> Given the upgrade requirement, and how clang version requirements
> constantly change, how much more difficult would it be for others
> to use gcc 7.1 or higher now instead of later?
What was the argument for jumping all the way to gcc-7.1?
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 10:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:18 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > So if the arguments are piling up, what is holding us back, other than
> > inertia?
>
> I think we can most certainly just try increasing the minimum version
> to 5.1 in the
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:18 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> So if the arguments are piling up, what is holding us back, other than
> inertia?
I think we can most certainly just try increasing the minimum version
to 5.1 in the next merge window and see.
> Note that banning 4.9 for arm64 and
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 23:09, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 1:44 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> wrote:
> >
> > So, maybe the Sparc issue was just a similar but different bug in gcc
> > 4.9.x.
>
> Good catch. And I know this bug has happened independently on
> different
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:15:09AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:58 AM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >
> > Maybe, we can raise the minimal version to gcc 5.1
> > for all architectures.
>
> It was discussed, but the immediate reason for this thing really does
> seem to be
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 1:44 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
wrote:
>
> So, maybe the Sparc issue was just a similar but different bug in gcc
> 4.9.x.
Good catch. And I know this bug has happened independently on
different architectures several times (I remember this on x86-64 as
well), so I
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:58 AM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>
> Maybe, we can raise the minimal version to gcc 5.1
> for all architectures.
It was discussed, but the immediate reason for this thing really does
seem to be specific to just arm64 (ie this is not some generic gcc
stack access bug that
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 02:57 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 1:08 AM Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 22:48:32 +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > GCC versions >= 4.9 and < 5.1 have been shown to emit memory references
> > > beyond the stack pointer,
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 1:08 AM Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 22:48:32 +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > GCC versions >= 4.9 and < 5.1 have been shown to emit memory references
> > beyond the stack pointer, resulting in memory corruption if an interrupt
> > is taken after the stack
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 22:48:32 +, Will Deacon wrote:
> GCC versions >= 4.9 and < 5.1 have been shown to emit memory references
> beyond the stack pointer, resulting in memory corruption if an interrupt
> is taken after the stack pointer has been adjusted but before the
> reference has been
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 06:35:50PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 6:14 PM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > Ack. I'll assume I get this the usual ways from the arm64 tree..
>
> Oh.. Actually, while you can use my ack if you decide to go this way,
> I do wonder if it might
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 6:14 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Ack. I'll assume I get this the usual ways from the arm64 tree..
Oh.. Actually, while you can use my ack if you decide to go this way,
I do wonder if it might not be better to introduce a notion of an
error at Kconfig time, and then we
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:48 PM Will Deacon wrote:
>
> Life is too short for buggy compilers, so raise the minimum GCC version
> required by arm64 to 5.1.
Ack. I'll assume I get this the usual ways from the arm64 tree..
Linus
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:48:32PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> GCC versions >= 4.9 and < 5.1 have been shown to emit memory references
> beyond the stack pointer, resulting in memory corruption if an interrupt
> is taken after the stack pointer has been adjusted but before the
> reference has been
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:48 PM Will Deacon wrote:
>
> GCC versions >= 4.9 and < 5.1 have been shown to emit memory references
> beyond the stack pointer, resulting in memory corruption if an interrupt
> is taken after the stack pointer has been adjusted but before the
> reference has been
GCC versions >= 4.9 and < 5.1 have been shown to emit memory references
beyond the stack pointer, resulting in memory corruption if an interrupt
is taken after the stack pointer has been adjusted but before the
reference has been executed. This leads to subtle, infrequent data
corruption such as
19 matches
Mail list logo
