[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: HAS_CC_CET_IBT misdetected
- To: Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 09:31:56 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=2YMiXAnfAKMyQKqJ13W90DOmfzJnHkhJukbcKuVvems=; b=ACbunt98dQnFWJnpOTUkBUJrIWx/uLao/4bN/OIlGP64CKL9srpljmfpV9dCQDgalkF0SzfIBS040xBtQCgYHvk8n467flDpBFEX3OgnPZH/qbiq77hbfnpXQ+YxIJc/IsKeoGqs7qY47wBaBAAKGVquXp3EZyfypE1ACUTx/gCX0SZtgx2JrKExzW8uyXC2EyHpT8FcakZlvyx6stxw+kktqA975TTTExQmFYwkJVODZgvyO2TqVbCQsauC8QOM0wM/NZaxgwqpNwe3dutjVmeEC4I5L+aO3a4OLeO3CMf/eTBuX1IoMOrr8T2WhnwOlWGyn1AA+aAGrsJIQDNL0Q==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=VZZE+F/eoqt3NpzStDOYzo5CExw18lv9QMwoWWIb3uS7CBoD/0XDT4IsdadcUzQAKB8xAuaPgFhCuCpbX0J+opiDcQwK4dNq+M6W1vr2pjOIOp6QRN4nHcpU9IZJZG17KgEU/2gzg2/9MPvIls/w+SJdJIWyJlbnyOwl0j+H2cBkwYuoUbEY6MAr0KMyYNln83CxLkXOgqS1NKDc4Q00pXq00iZ61gJWGm/hpTvJ3KdahyF0vmYacSzvLxQIHnCHZPA7mrR6AjQKqaGQVVHTWpgqBw1Qdhflr9v1zYPzD998AZybnWxA/vdMBLAIwMV/cRVQKFTl58b03Qixzd3Xjg==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2023 07:32:05 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 02.05.2023 07:48, Olaf Hering wrote:
> The next push to xen.git#staging will trigger a build failure in the
> refreshed Leap docker image.
>
> For some reason HAS_CC_CET_IBT will evaluate to true. I think the significant
> change is the binutils upgrade from 2.37 to 2.39 in November 2022.
>
> The comment indicates the combination of gcc7 and binutils 2.39 is supposed
> to evaluate HAS_CC_CET_IBT to false.
How does 2.37 vs 2.39 matter? CET-IBT support is present in gas as of 2.29.
IOW I think it all ought to be tied to gcc being 7.x when 9.x is the
supposed minimum. Did you / could you check which of the three options
(-fcf-protection=branch -mmanual-endbr -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern)
is/are possibly recognized by the (likely also updated) gcc7 there? That
may provide a hint at what's going wrong ...
Jan
|
