From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83AC785E1 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 23:06:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id w0RN6b2u007310 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 27 Jan 2018 23:06:38 GMT Message-ID: <1517094397.756.44.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Manjukumar Harthikote Matha , openembedded-core Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 23:06:37 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <1516102686.29722.267.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <1517070952.756.40.camel@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at dan X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: Yocto Project, Spectre and Meltdown X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 23:06:39 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 2018-01-27 at 16:59 +0000, Manjukumar Harthikote Matha wrote: > -----Original Message----- > > From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org > > [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf > > Of > > Richard Purdie > > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 8:36 AM > > To: openembedded-core > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project, Spectre and Meltdown > > > > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 11:38 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > > > I just wanted to give people an update on where the project > > > stands > > > with these issues. > > Master now contains gcc and kernel fixes (in linux-yocto). meta- > > yocto- bsp updates > > are still pending. > > > > rocko-next also has those fixes and is undergoing testing which if > > it passes, will get > > pushed to rocko. > > > I see that rocko-next branch is upgrading the GCC version to 7.3 from > 7.2 , is there a reason to do so? > I was under the impression that we would backport the security fixes > to 7.2 version. As Khem replied, this is the stable gcc series and gcc remapped their versioning scheme a while back to mean that 7.3 is a point release of the 7 series. I'm of the view that the gcc team know a lot more about which patches should be backported to a stable series and have a better skillset and knowledge base to know how to apply patches onto the older versions than we do. As such I believe that 7.3 is the right approach for rocko. Do you have a reason to believe we should do something else? Note that for pyro and earlier we will need gcc 6 patches, we are not upgrading 6 -> 7 on pyro since that would cause a ton of breakage. Cheers, Richard