Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:42:05 -0400
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        Mauro Rossi <issor.oruam@gmail.com>,
        Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/changes: Raise minimum supported binutils
 version to 2.23
Message-ID: <20200324214204.GB3220053@rani.riverdale.lan>
References: <20200115122458.GB20975@zn.tnic>
 <20200316160259.GN26126@zn.tnic>
 <20200323204454.GA2611336@zx2c4.com>
 <202003231350.7D35351@keescook>
 <CAK7LNARMBkc666kZ9jOG9sSThzA69JvKi++WZXMtCP9ddyqcBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200324091437.GB22931@zn.tnic>
 <CAHmME9q2VuhN+Dhi-nzuJKPjXo8dZq013cZ-0x0t9StZFXCAJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200324162843.GE22931@zn.tnic>
 <CAHk-=whXBO-Z=Ra_UX=w_LefG1r6iLXcPT=sLuZ+EaKFtWtCBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200324164812.GG22931@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200324164812.GG22931@zn.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:48:12PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:37:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I think it's ok. It's not going to cause any _subtle_ failures, it's
> > going to cause very clear "oh, now it doesn't build" errors.
> > 
> > No?
> > 
> > And binutils 2.23 is what, 7+ years old by now and apparently had
> > known failure cases too.
> > 
> > But if there are silent and subtle failures, that might be a reason to
> > be careful. Are there?
> 
> Well, not that I know of and that's why I'm being overly cautious. Maybe
> too cautious but a lot of hectic testing of last minute fixes in the
> past have taught me to take my time.
> 
> And since it doesn't really matter when the patch goes in - there's
> always the next merge window - I would prefer to take our time and have
> it simmer in -next for max period.
> 
> So yeah, 2.23 has been tested for a long time now and it is very likely
> that nothing would happen and if you think it's ok, then sure. Then if
> you happen to see urgent pull requests with build or some other fixes,
> at least you'll be prepared. :-)
> 

This is just a documentation patch right? Nothing actually changes with
the build. The only possible thing that we would potentially have to
deal with is

(1) people noticing the doc change and complaining that they
still need to use binutils-2.21 for some reason -- but they can't
currently build an x86 kernel without patches anyway, so...

(2) people noticing the doc change and suggesting moving to 2.26 or some
later version instead of 2.23.