From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A101223330; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 11:53:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734609208; cv=none; b=iXrBucITUBCsE2n5tbT59F/qFquEoluhOd4yqQVfgPm9iptiZ5OzsAcwQvjAu2Csk2pidURsXze9GjzZxNPn45tEjKN1l1h3xzjUjsszFCBUOGRI9Aouja4D2XhTJcdgyI4Es89RFqSyOjyPzYlBFvZsMKJ5uXKt6iCTEmATCXU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734609208; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7SYHZIs/WrMiFnJV+UNkilY+ZLz4Hxrf5N56/tTsSDA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=s1mMaFYGchudiRdpSATSPBLucSshHkp8+k/jy5+rldeNyLU8/INF+CI0aCyKIyreEFsrunngBdSe2e1pFDcOnbli0R2XOJU3RsSw9Yi960YVMAdhyHUjhkb/atYPtn0R/pBZwjywQ0iSaHNf9N/tiCZRWaryb0TBxXyxgCKHCLY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3EC1477; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 03:53:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from J2N7QTR9R3 (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4C173F720; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 03:53:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 11:53:13 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Uros Bizjak , Dennis Zhou , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , Mathieu Desnoyers , Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Juergen Gross , Boris Ostrovsky , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Masahiro Yamada , Kees Cook , Nathan Chancellor , Keith Packard , Justin Stitt , Josh Poimboeuf , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Namhyung Kim , Jiri Olsa , Ian Rogers , Adrian Hunter , Kan Liang , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Linux-Arch , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/28] Documentation: Bump minimum GCC version to 8.1 Message-ID: References: <20240925150059.3955569-30-ardb+git@google.com> <20240925150059.3955569-32-ardb+git@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hi Arnd, On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 03:58:38PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024, at 15:01, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > From: Ard Biesheuvel > > > > Bump the minimum GCC version to 8.1 to gain unconditional support for > > referring to the per-task stack cookie using a symbol rather than > > relying on the fixed offset of 40 bytes from %GS, which requires > > elaborate hacks to support. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > --- > > Documentation/admin-guide/README.rst | 2 +- > > Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann > > As we discussed during plumbers, I think this is reasonable, > both the gcc-8.1 version and the timing after the 6.12-LTS > kernel. > > We obviously need to go through all the other version checks > to see what else can be cleaned up. I would suggest we also > raise the binutils version to 2.30+, which is what RHEL8 > shipped alongside gcc-8. I have not found other distros that > use older binutils in combination with gcc-8 or higher, > Debian 10 uses binutils-2.31. > I don't think we want to combine the additional cleanup with > your series, but if we can agree on the version, we can do that > in parallel. Were you planning to send patches to that effect, or did you want someone else to do that? I think we were largely agreed on making those changes, but it wasn't clear to me who was actually going to send patches, and I couldn't spot a subsequent thread on LKML. Mark.