Bug#841368: gcc-6 6.2.0-7 breaks kernel build if stack protection is enabled
Package: gcc-6
Version: 6.2.0-7
Kernel building with stack protection enabled breaks with 6.2.0-7, whereas identical .config works using 6.2.0-6:
output:
make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/linux-4.8.1'
make ARCH=x86_64 prepare
make[2]: Entering directory '/usr/src/linux-4.8.1'
scripts/kconfig/conf --silentoldconfig Kconfig
SYSTBL arch/x86/entry/syscalls/../../include/generated/asm/syscalls_32.h
SYSHDR arch/x86/entry/syscalls/../../include/generated/asm/unistd_32_ia32.h
SYSHDR arch/x86/entry/syscalls/../../include/generated/asm/unistd_64_x32.h
SYSTBL arch/x86/entry/syscalls/../../include/generated/asm/syscalls_64.h
SYSHDR arch/x86/entry/syscalls/../../include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd_32.h
SYSHDR arch/x86/entry/syscalls/../../include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd_64.h
SYSHDR arch/x86/entry/syscalls/../../include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd_x32.h
HOSTCC arch/x86/tools/relocs_32.o
HOSTCC arch/x86/tools/relocs_64.o
HOSTCC arch/x86/tools/relocs_common.o
HOSTLD arch/x86/tools/relocs
CHK include/config/kernel.release
UPD include/config/kernel.release
Cannot use CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR: -fstack-protector not supported by compiler
Makefile:1048: recipe for target 'prepare-compiler-check' failed
make[2]: *** [prepare-compiler-check] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/linux-4.8.1'
debian/ruleset/targets/common.mk:194: recipe for target 'debian/stamp/conf/kernel-conf' failed
make[1]: *** [debian/stamp/conf/kernel-conf] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/linux-4.8.1'
/usr/share/kernel-package/ruleset/minimal.mk:93: recipe for target 'debian/stamp/conf/minimal_debian' failed
make: *** [debian/stamp/conf/minimal_debian] Error 2
Failed to create a ./debian directory: No such file or directory at /usr/bin/make-kpkg line 970.
relevant .config section:
CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
# CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE is not set
CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR=y
# CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG is not set
-- sRw
Reply to: