On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:44:31PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 21:18 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > I feel like I am standing idly by and you are doing all the work. I
> > admit that this involves some arcane things that I do not fully grok at
> >
On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 21:18 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:11:28AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sat, 2018-04-14 at 01:57 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I've pushed my version to:
> > > https://people.debian.org/~benh/packages/wheezy-security/
> > >
On Sun, 2018-04-15 at 00:42 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-04-14 at 02:11 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sat, 2018-04-14 at 01:57 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I've pushed my version to:
> > > https://people.debian.org/~benh/packages/wheezy-security/
> > >
> > > I bel
On 15/04/18 01:42, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-04-14 at 02:11 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Sat, 2018-04-14 at 01:57 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I've pushed my version to:
>>> https://people.debian.org/~benh/packages/wheezy-security/
>>>
>>> I believe this builds the right
On Sat, 2018-04-14 at 02:11 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-04-14 at 01:57 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [...]
> > I've pushed my version to:
> > https://people.debian.org/~benh/packages/wheezy-security/
> >
> > I believe this builds the right set of binary packages, and the files
> > c
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 02:11:28AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-04-14 at 01:57 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [...]
> > I've pushed my version to:
> > https://people.debian.org/~benh/packages/wheezy-security/
> >
> > I believe this builds the right set of binary packages, and the file
On Sat, 2018-04-14 at 01:57 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> I've pushed my version to:
> https://people.debian.org/~benh/packages/wheezy-security/
>
> I believe this builds the right set of binary packages, and the files
> contained in them match the binaries built from 4.9.2-10+deb8u1 with a
On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 23:02 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [Trimmed the cc list]
>
> On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 18:39 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 17:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > I didn't know how it worked, only that it does work. Anyway, I've
> > > looked n
[Trimmed the cc list]
On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 18:39 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 17:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > I didn't know how it worked, only that it does work. Anyway, I've
> > looked now and I think you need to apply the following patch:
> >
> > --- gcc-4.
On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 17:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-04-03 at 05:52 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 01:45:40AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > I would suggest looking at how non-default compiler versions are built
> > > in other suites.
> > >
On Tue, 2018-04-03 at 05:52 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 01:45:40AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest looking at how non-default compiler versions are built
> > in other suites.
> >
> > Ben.
> >
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> Could you provide some more specifi
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 01:45:40AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> I would suggest looking at how non-default compiler versions are built
> in other suites.
>
> Ben.
>
Hi Ben,
Could you provide some more specific pointers at what I should look at?
I tried looking at gcc-4.8 in jessie, but I was
On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 20:44 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
>
> > Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is
> > going to affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if
> > it's the right approach. We introduced GCC 4.8 in wheezy, named
On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 13:37 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 05:04:03PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >
> > Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is going
> > to
> > affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if it's the r
On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 07:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
[...]
> That said, I did notice a difference between the built packages on
> jessie and wheezy. Specifically, none of the lib64, libn32,
> and libx32 packages were built on wheezy. I expected the libx32
> packages to be missing, but I was
* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
> Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is
> going to affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if
> it's the right approach. We introduced GCC 4.8 in wheezy, named
> gcc-mozilla (a bad name I know) which didn't build these librari
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 05:04:03PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
> Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is going to
> affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if it's the right
> approach. We introduced GCC 4.8 in wheezy, named gcc-mozilla (a bad
On 01/04/18 13:48, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:30:28AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> I released Linux 3.2.101 today with a backport of the retpoline
>> changes, and have rebased that branch onto it. The new orig tarball is
>> at https://people.debian.org/~benh/linux_
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 07:48:55AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> At this point I feel like the packages are ready for upload, but it
> seems prudent to first wait for confirmation that the kernel build on
> wheezy works with this backported gcc. Once I receive that confirmation,
> I will pr
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 01:53:44PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 07:48:55AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > Additionally, when I checked the PTS for information on the recent jessie
> > upload it
> > was a binary upload built for amd64.
>
> Source uploads to the
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 07:48:55AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Additionally, when I checked the PTS for information on the recent jessie
> upload it
> was a binary upload built for amd64.
Source uploads to the security archive are only possible from stretch onwards.
Cheers,
Moritz
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:30:28AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> I released Linux 3.2.101 today with a backport of the retpoline
> changes, and have rebased that branch onto it. The new orig tarball is
> at https://people.debian.org/~benh/linux_3.2.101.orig.tar.xz
>
> I was able to build this
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 02:05 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 20:40 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 11:07 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 03:22:14PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that backporting gcc-4.9 a
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 20:40 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 11:07 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 03:22:14PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that backporting gcc-4.9 and building the kernel with it (for
> > > x86) is lower risk than
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 11:07 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 03:22:14PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > I think that backporting gcc-4.9 and building the kernel with it (for
> > x86) is lower risk than backporting the retpoline patches to gcc-4.7
> > and building the
On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 11:07:12AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 03:22:14PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > I think that backporting gcc-4.9 and building the kernel with it (for
> > x86) is lower risk than backporting the retpoline patches to gcc-4.7
> > and buildi
On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 03:22:14PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> I think that backporting gcc-4.9 and building the kernel with it (for
> x86) is lower risk than backporting the retpoline patches to gcc-4.7
> and building the kernel with that. (In fact it's not just the kernel;
> if you change g
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 10:18 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 02:31:20PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 07:56 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, if this looks like it would be substantially more complex, I
> > > will again ask for
On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 02:31:20PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 07:56 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > Of course, if this looks like it would be substantially more complex, I
> > will again ask for guidance, but the likely course at that point seems
> > to implement th
On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 07:56 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:06:03PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > It will almost certainly build correctly with 4.9 on x86. AIUI the
> > Spectre mitigations in gcc are x86-specific, so there's no value in
> > changing it for ARM
On 2018-03-01 07:56:45, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
[...]
> I suppose another possibility would be to backport the patches to gcc
> 4.7 instead of 4.6 and switch the kernel build to gcc 4.7. Would that be
> considered to introduce less risk than bringing gcc 4.9 into wheezy at
> this stage?
Maybe
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:06:03PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> It will almost certainly build correctly with 4.9 on x86. AIUI the
> Spectre mitigations in gcc are x86-specific, so there's no value in
> changing it for ARM and there would be a risk of exceeding code size
> limits on armel. Th
On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 14:40 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-02-25 13:57:07, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 07:04:12PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 08:54:06AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Please see
On 2018-02-25 13:57:07, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 07:04:12PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 08:54:06AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Please see my rather long-winded summary of the current state of the
>> > gcc-4.6/gcc
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 07:04:12PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 08:54:06AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Please see my rather long-winded summary of the current state of the
> > gcc-4.6/gcc-4.7 update. The bottom line is that I am looking for opi
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 08:54:06AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please see my rather long-winded summary of the current state of the
> gcc-4.6/gcc-4.7 update. The bottom line is that I am looking for opions
> and/or guidance for how to proceed.
Why 4.6 _and_ 4.7? Only the compil
Hi all,
Please see my rather long-winded summary of the current state of the
gcc-4.6/gcc-4.7 update. The bottom line is that I am looking for opions
and/or guidance for how to proceed.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 08:56:42PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:33:12PM +0100,
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:16:02PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>
> Maybe using HJ Lu's patches for 4.9 against 4.6 also works out
> just fine, but it's hard to tell.
>
I in the process of doing this now. Many patches/hunks appear to apply
with offset or small fuzz, but some are a bit more in
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 01:39:13AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 20:56 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:33:12PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On IRC I learned that Moritz Muehlenhoff (jmm) started the work of
> > > bakcporting retpoline to
On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 20:56 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:33:12PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On IRC I learned that Moritz Muehlenhoff (jmm) started the work of
> > bakcporting retpoline to gcc-4.9 for jessie. We need to do the same
> > for gcc-4.6 (and maybe g
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:33:12PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On IRC I learned that Moritz Muehlenhoff (jmm) started the work of
> bakcporting retpoline to gcc-4.9 for jessie. We need to do the same
> for gcc-4.6 (and maybe gcc-4.7) in wheezy. gcc-4.6 is used for the
> kernel build so that's t
Hi
I waited some as I did not think I had any additional information to
contribute with. But I realize that I can gather some data and start
to compile a page for others to start with.
As I said in the other mail thread I have created a first page here:
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Wheezy/SpectreM
Hello,
On Thu, 08 Feb 2018, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I have had enquiries of LTS sponsors about the status of spectre/meltdown
> mitigations in Debian. I tried to answer but even for me as an insider who
> knows the ins and outs of Debian rather well, it's really difficult for me
> to be able to a
Hello everybody,
I have had enquiries of LTS sponsors about the status of spectre/meltdown
mitigations in Debian. I tried to answer but even for me as an insider who
knows the ins and outs of Debian rather well, it's really difficult for me
to be able to answer.
IMO we should really try to mainta
44 matches
Mail list logo
