> - "External modules must be built with the same GCC version"
>
> As has been stated repeatedly, by Linus and others, there's no
> technical reason behind this claim. It ignores the realities of how
> distros release the kernel and compiler independently, with separate
> cadences. Minor
On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 01:03:32AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Ok. So it sounds like the best/easiest option is the original patch in
> > this thread: when building an external module with a GCC mismatch, just
> > disable the GCC plugin, with a warning (or an error for randstruct).
>
> Jus
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:41 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 11:12:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:36 AM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > >
> > > All the kernel-space objects are rebuilt
> > > when the compiler is upgraded.
> >
> > I very much NAK'ed
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:13 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:36 AM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >
> > All the kernel-space objects are rebuilt
> > when the compiler is upgraded.
>
> I very much NAK'ed that one. Why did that go in?
When the compiler is upgraded, all objects
shou
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 6:41 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> This thread is making me dizzy, but I think the patch you NAK'ed from me
> was different. It just added an error on GCC mismatch with external
> modules:
>
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/fff056a7c9e6050c2d60910f70b6d99602f3bec4.1611863075
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 11:12:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:36 AM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >
> > All the kernel-space objects are rebuilt
> > when the compiler is upgraded.
>
> I very much NAK'ed that one. Why did that go in?
>
> Or maybe I NAK'ed another version o
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:36 AM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>
> All the kernel-space objects are rebuilt
> when the compiler is upgraded.
I very much NAK'ed that one. Why did that go in?
Or maybe I NAK'ed another version of it (I think the one I NAK'ed was
from Josh), and didn't realize that there wer
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 12:08 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 09:27:28PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > I agree with rebuilding GCC plugins when the compiler is upgraded
> > for *in-tree* building.
> > Linus had reported it a couple of months before,
> > and I just submitted
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 09:27:28PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> I agree with rebuilding GCC plugins when the compiler is upgraded
> for *in-tree* building.
> Linus had reported it a couple of months before,
> and I just submitted a very easy fix.
Hm? So does that mean that a GCC version change
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 6:45 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:56:52PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:24 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >
> > > Your nack is for a different reason: GCC plugins are second-class
> > > citizens. Fair enough...
> >
> >
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 4:15 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 03:49:35AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > This problem is becoming more prevalent. We will need to fix it one way
> > > or another, if we want to support distro adoption of these GCC
> > > plugin-based features.
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:57:33AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> End result: gcc plugins are pure garbage, and you should shun them. If
I think that's pretty harsh, but okay, opinions are opinions. As Josh
says, people are interested in them for not-uncommon real-world uses:
- stackleak has data
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:56:52PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:24 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > Your nack is for a different reason: GCC plugins are second-class
> > citizens. Fair enough...
>
> MNo, I didn't NAK it. Quite the reverser.
>
> I am ABSOLUTELY agains
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:25:34AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:15 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > Adding Linus, who indicated in another thread that we shouldn't force
> > exact GCC versions because there's no technical reason to do so.
>
> I do not believe we should
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:24 PM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> Your nack is for a different reason: GCC plugins are second-class
> citizens. Fair enough...
MNo, I didn't NAK it. Quite the reverser.
I am ABSOLUTELY against rebuilding normal object files just because
gcc versions change. A compiler ve
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 02:24:12PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:57:33AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:38 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >
> > > > But in the meantime, making the plugins depend on the gcc version some
> > > > way is certainly
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:57:33AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:38 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > But in the meantime, making the plugins depend on the gcc version some
> > > way is certainly better than not doing so.
> >
> > So currently, the plugins already so tha
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:38 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > But in the meantime, making the plugins depend on the gcc version some
> > way is certainly better than not doing so.
>
> So currently, the plugins already so that. They require the GCC version
> to be exact. If there's a mismatch, then
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:15 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> Adding Linus, who indicated in another thread that we shouldn't force
> exact GCC versions because there's no technical reason to do so.
I do not believe we should recompile everything just because the gcc
version changes.
But gcc _plugin
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 03:49:35AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > This problem is becoming more prevalent. We will need to fix it one way
> > or another, if we want to support distro adoption of these GCC
> > plugin-based features.
> >
> > Frank suggested a possibly better idea: always rebuild
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 8:27 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:42:10PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > When building out-of-tree kernel modules, the build system doesn't
> > require the GCC version to match the version used to build the original
> > kernel. That's probably [
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:42:10PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> When building out-of-tree kernel modules, the build system doesn't
> require the GCC version to match the version used to build the original
> kernel. That's probably [1] fine.
>
> In fact, for many distros, the version of GCC used
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 02:29:52PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:51:13PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Is this a joke? I've never met anybody who builds OOT modules as a
> > development aid...
>
> I'm pretty sure you've met me before.
Yes, but I don't recall thi
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:51:13PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Is this a joke? I've never met anybody who builds OOT modules as a
> development aid...
I'm pretty sure you've met me before.
> On the other hand I know of several very popular distros (some paid,
> some not) who rely on allowing
From: Josh Poimboeuf
> Sent: 27 January 2021 18:51
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:43:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:38:56PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:02:15PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > Please don't add all this g
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:43:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:38:56PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:02:15PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Please don't add all this garbage. We only add infrastructure to the
> > > kernel for wh
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:38:56PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:02:15PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Please don't add all this garbage. We only add infrastructure to the
> > kernel for what the kernel itself needs, not for weird out of tree
> > infrastructure.
>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:02:15PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Please don't add all this garbage. We only add infrastructure to the
> kernel for what the kernel itself needs, not for weird out of tree
> infrastructure.
This isn't new, the kernel already has the infrastructure for building
o
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:44AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> Support and enforce are 2 completely different things. To shed a bit
> more light on this, the real issue that prompted this was breaking CI
> systems. As we enabled gcc plugins in Fedora, and the toolchain folks
> went through 3 di
Please don't add all this garbage. We only add infrastructure to the
kernel for what the kernel itself needs, not for weird out of tree
infrastructure.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:42:10PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> When building out-of-tree kernel modules, the build system doesn't
> require th
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:56:10AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:19:53PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:03:07PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:42:10P
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:19:53PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:03:07PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:42:10PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > When a GCC version mismatch is detected, print a warning and disable the
> > > plugin. The only exc
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:59:57PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:56:10AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:19:53PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:03:07P
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:56:10AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:19:53PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:03:07PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:42:10PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > When a GCC version mismatch is de
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:19:34AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:15:52AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:05 AM Peter Zijlstra
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:46:51AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:27:55PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:16:01AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:42 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >
> > > When building out-of-tree kernel modules, the build system doesn't
> > > require the GCC version
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:07 AM Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:19:34AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:15:52AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:05 AM Peter Zijlstra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:46:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:07:57PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:35AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > If people use a different compiler, they must be
> > > > prepared for any possible problem.
> > > >
> > > > Using different compiler flags for in-tree and out-o
From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 26 January 2021 16:05
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:46:51AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:51:55AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > User space mixes compiler versio
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:15:52AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:05 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:46:51AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:5
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:05 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:46:51AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:51:55AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > User space mixes compiler ver
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:46:51AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:51:55AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > User space mixes compiler versions all the time. The C ABI is stable.
> > >
> > > What specif
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:51:55AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > User space mixes compiler versions all the time. The C ABI is stable.
> >
> > What specifically is the harder issue you're referring to?
>
> I don't think the C A
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:51:55AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> User space mixes compiler versions all the time. The C ABI is stable.
>
> What specifically is the harder issue you're referring to?
I don't think the C ABI captures nearly enough. Imagine trying to mix a
compiler with and without
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:51:55AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:51:29PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:44AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:21 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:07:57PM -060
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:51:29PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:44AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:21 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:07:57PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:35AM +0900,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:44AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:21 AM Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:07:57PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:35AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > > > If people use a different compi
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:21 AM Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:07:57PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:35AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > > If people use a different compiler, they must be
> > > > > prepared for any possible problem.
> > > > >
> We started with the assumption that modules must be compiled
> by the same compiler as the kernel was.
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/836247/#1031547
>
> Now that the compiler capability is evaluated in Kconfig,
> this is a harder requirement.
>
> In reality, a different compiler mig
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 7:03 AM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:42:10PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > When a GCC version mismatch is detected, print a warning and disable the
> > plugin. The only exception is the RANDSTRUCT plugin which needs all
> > code to see the same struct
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:16:01AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:42 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > When building out-of-tree kernel modules, the build system doesn't
> > require the GCC version to match the version used to build the original
> > kernel. That's probab
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:03:07PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:42:10PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > When a GCC version mismatch is detected, print a warning and disable the
> > plugin. The only exception is the RANDSTRUCT plugin which needs all
> > code to see the same
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:44:35AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > If people use a different compiler, they must be
> > > prepared for any possible problem.
> > >
> > > Using different compiler flags for in-tree and out-of-tree
> > > is even more dangerous.
> > >
> > > For example, CONFIG_GCC_P
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:42:10PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> When a GCC version mismatch is detected, print a warning and disable the
> plugin. The only exception is the RANDSTRUCT plugin which needs all
> code to see the same struct layouts. In that case print an error.
I prefer this patch
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:28 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:16:01AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:42 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >
> > > When building out-of-tree kernel modules, the build system doesn't
> > > require the GCC version to matc
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:42 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> When building out-of-tree kernel modules, the build system doesn't
> require the GCC version to match the version used to build the original
> kernel. That's probably [1] fine.
>
> In fact, for many distros, the version of GCC used to buil
When building out-of-tree kernel modules, the build system doesn't
require the GCC version to match the version used to build the original
kernel. That's probably [1] fine.
In fact, for many distros, the version of GCC used to build the latest
kernel doesn't necessarily match the latest released
57 matches
Mail list logo
