From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wfout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wfout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7D2C2CA4 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:55:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.146 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711234545; cv=none; b=LQA4sS+ACZdj2mGDw5H0xTeA5qd4wresyOXv6JF78tAhDdXUrHKpmtNM4G125pXPxoHEQSu/PYyE7jwCkf7B8R0uJLa9qxfZQ39i0WEHgYZKHPu2SWUBiH36WCFBIjpWSybiaikChsgNng5l6H+yYdbDzFvspfrxPe0FDAVpkgc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711234545; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WpbkNjAnUQfibmG0zhPT63E357okTaSIiF0QU2QjOdo=; h=MIME-Version:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:To:Cc: Subject:Content-Type; b=rkmrumeYAT+kg8cvLaTi4eitoeg7qXzrcgT50CfKZ5YoA3P4ZReaF0UGWCTgbRnfqKDG/E5VNdRhFv0nEi0aPu9gzbZ3lqgqb1bIdHWvoxyvjOS2KsUhYQAYVYJCxtKaJau8S10cGu3Wb4BYc8R0BsRCw012YQiPUICl9sEoY9M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arndb.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arndb.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arndb.de header.i=@arndb.de header.b=WIWbc/hi; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=G56/I1KP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.146 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arndb.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arndb.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arndb.de header.i=@arndb.de header.b="WIWbc/hi"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="G56/I1KP" Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19951C00092; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap51 ([10.202.2.101]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:55:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arndb.de; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1711234540; x=1711320940; bh=bC1rTRA0oE 547pSYiwYtjsGg7PPu/f1OalliEsTl7PI=; b=WIWbc/hiea+CS/WIkittN8hHGx DH6Og8XtjHZhGxKn+arzh1TE2C4wIJkNkPF3SeOTDsablj32GhmWNJLRSe5rtpAP SQp53mE+TCNy34HQspFsHNQBDt0AYtkb4C4SHqn0zTlXGuJVwQ414lyjj61xx9of rf6IhEYx/RcQeCr6nJf5kQ77eQRjewRkf5YSCFrb+ZC+/WujZcIRutvpr0OkKJGg V7QDdblF/ZTX6y6qsSHLS/dbeqyv9/N6xK1G0KJK/Lrf6c0iDZE7rucB56CnNGuB v43qefShg2oL/Klia+C2tdufiHQiVEJPFYJ1T1t4nowIZ4WsOEuWwdKI0QWQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1711234540; x=1711320940; bh=bC1rTRA0oE547pSYiwYtjsGg7PPu /f1OalliEsTl7PI=; b=G56/I1KPmOY012xO860qT80NrNUc51+kEZOcbaoWkz1L 5BvBZ656OAwBcKBvBgmCL8kZ9/Dxq+tk4W3LrmcXTKg4qQKzYImlmnUu/fxtNpdh NDS2d6xShQCCITxA3BQ7KfEA/yviZpig/AP1gM+4Z/7DNmvzcz7HlJM+pzC8kyXa mRDJIa8dp5bPPzgAU5tSTYQi3CUepdeL7CyKqBz4WYDp90Y0Ki70Jduscgeih/us k+DlFmVCBYNiqRdEbaPsDfnSP4pjNiUUtvmjZ/RxdF2omUgitK8kgySeDa6aL2zp 1XDWhU653GfCe+IxmP3SWpOU2cMqUUT93P2sQP2t4g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledruddthedgtdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvfevufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedftehr nhguuceuvghrghhmrghnnhdfuceorghrnhgusegrrhhnuggsrdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepffehueegteeihfegtefhjefgtdeugfegjeelheejueethfefgeeghfektdek teffnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprg hrnhgusegrrhhnuggsrdguvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 72409B6008F; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:55:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-332-gdeb4194079-fm-20240319.002-gdeb41940 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20240322165233.71698-1-brgerst@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:55:02 +0100 From: "Arnd Bergmann" To: "Linus Torvalds" , "Brian Gerst" Cc: "Uros Bizjak" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Borislav Petkov" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "David Laight" , "Ard Biesheuvel" , "Kees Cook" , "Nathan Chancellor" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] x86-64: Stack protector and percpu improvements Content-Type: text/plain On Sat, Mar 23, 2024, at 17:16, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > That said, we don't actually have all that many gcc version checks > around any more, so I think the jump to 5.1 got rid of the worst of > the horrors. Most of the GCC_VERSION checks are either in gcc-plugins > (which we should just remove, imnsho - not the version checks, the > plugins entirely), or for various random minor details (warnign > enablement and the asm goto workaround). There are also a bunch of feature checks in Kconfig that don't check the version number but instead try if something works. At least three of the six plugins can be removed with sufficiently new compilers: GCC_PLUGIN_SANCOV after gcc-6, and both GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK and GCC_PLUGIN_ARM_SSP_PER_TASK after gcc-12. > So there doesn't seem to be a major reason to up the versioning, since > the stack protector thing can just be disabled for older versions. > > But maybe even enterprise distros have upgraded anyway, and we should > be proactive. > > Cc'ing Arnd, who has historically been one of the people pushing this. > He may no longer care because we haven't had huge issues. I'm not aware of any major issues, but it keeps coming up and a number of people have asked me about it because of smaller ones. Unfortunately I didn't write down what the problems were. I think based on what compiler versions are shipped by LTS distros, gcc-8.1 is the next logical step when we do it, covering Debian 10, RHEL 8 and Ubuntu 20.04, which are probably the oldest we still need to support. RHEL 7 and SLES 12 are still technically supported distros as well, but those shipped with gcc-4.8, so we dropped them in 2020 with the move to gcc-4.9. So in short, not a lot to gain or lose from raising the minimum to 8.1, but it would be nice to reduce the possible test matrix from 10 gcc versions back to the 7 we had in the past, as well as clean up a few version dependencies. Similarly we can probably raise the oldest binutils version to 2.30, as that seems to be the earliest version that was paired with gcc-8 (in RHEL-8). Arnd