Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 09:31:34 -0800 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Patrick McLean <chutzpah@...too.org>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Bruce Fields <bfields@...hat.com>, "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [nfsd4] potentially hardware breaking regression in 4.14-rc and 4.13.11 Boris Lukashev points out that Patrick should probably check a newer version of gcc. I looked around, and in one of the emails, Patrick said: "No changes, both the working and broken kernels were built with distro-provided gcc 5.4.0 and binutils 2.28.1" and gcc-5.4.0 is certainly not very recent. It's not _ancient_, but it's a bug-fix release to a pretty old branch that is not exactly new. It would probably be good to check if the problems persist with gcc 6.x or 7.x.. I have no idea which gcc version the randstruct people tend to use themselves. Linus On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > I'll take a closer look at this and see if I can provide something to > narrow it down.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.