Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:51:55 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc:     Justin Forbes <jforbes@redhat.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] gcc-plugins: Handle GCC version mismatch for OOT
 modules
Message-ID: <20210126145155.kcfbnzfqg5qugvcl@treble>
References: <efe6b039a544da8215d5e54aa7c4b6d1986fc2b0.1611607264.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <CAK7LNAS=uOi=8xJU=NiKnXQW2iCazbErg_TX0gL9oayBiDffiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210125212755.jfwlqogpcarmxdgt@treble>
 <CAK7LNAS+EG9doX3qUmu4M3=mRNmdybSv4180Xnuubiwmsq0Agw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210125220757.vxdsf6sttpy46cq7@treble>
 <YA/PLdX5m9f4v+Yl@kroah.com>
 <CAFbkSA0m1pqmXh29j6wJ9fG05yC72T1kNC0QU3rF7Oh2NoMwYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YBAeYaDReAc9VscA@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YBAeYaDReAc9VscA@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

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 <greg@kroah.com> 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Using different compiler flags for in-tree and out-of-tree
> > > > > > > is even more dangerous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT is enabled
> > > > > > > for in-tree build, and then disabled for out-of-tree modules,
> > > > > > > the struct layout will mismatch, won't it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you read the patch you'll notice that it handles that case, when it's
> > > > > > caused by GCC mismatch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, as alluded to in the [1] footnote, it doesn't handle the case
> > > > > > where the OOT build system doesn't have gcc-plugin-devel installed.
> > > > > > Then CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT gets silently disabled and the build
> > > > > > succeeds!  That happens even without a GCC mismatch.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > I responded too early before reading the patch fully.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, I do not like to make RANDSTRUCT a special case.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd rather want to stop building for any plugin.
> > > >
> > > > Other than RANDSTRUCT there doesn't seem to be any problem with
> > > > disabling them (and printing a warning) in the OOT build.  Why not give
> > > > users that option?  It's harmless, and will make distro's (and their
> > > > users') lives easier.
> > > >
> > > > Either GCC mismatch is ok, or it's not.  Let's not half-enforce it.
> > >
> > > As I said earlier, it's not ok, we can not support it at all.
> > >
> > 
> > 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 different snapshots of gcc 11 in a week. Any CI process
> > that built an out of tree module failed. I don't think this is nearly
> > as much of a concern for stable distros, as it is for CI in
> > development cycles.
> 
> It's better to have an obvious break like this than to silently accept
> things and then have a much harder issue to debug at runtime, right?

User space mixes compiler versions all the time.  The C ABI is stable.

What specifically is the harder issue you're referring to?

-- 
Josh