Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 1:12 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On 06/29/2018 01:42 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>> I think that building on arm64 after fixing the bug in question is the
>>> way to move forward. I'm surprised the bug itself hasn't been fixed yet,
>>> doesn't speak for ARM.
>>
>>  if you mean ARM hardware (OoO), it's too late.  systems are out there
>> with OoO speculative execution bugs in the hardware (and certainly
>> more to be found), and they're here to stay unfortunately.
>
> How are the speculative execution bugs related in any way to the software
> bug which prevents proper KVM emulation of ARM32 binaries on ARM64? Those
> are two completely different topics.

 apologies, i just didn't quite understand your answer, so i was
looking for clarification.

>>  if you mean that buildd on 32-bit systems could be modified to pass
>> "-Wl,--no-keep-memory" to all linker phases to see if that results in
>> the anticipated dramatic reduction in memory usage, that's
>> straightforward to try, nothing to do with ARM themselves.
>
> Again: I was talking about building 32-bit packages on 64-bit systems,
> i.e. 32-bit userland on a 64-bit kernel. We do that for a lot of architectures,
> including mips, powerpc, x86 and in the past also for sparc.

 would it be possible to try out that linker flag and let the binutils
team know the results?  i'd also really like to know.

l.