[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 08:11:14PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Niels Thykier:
> > armel/armhf:
> > ------------
> >
> >  * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020.  armhf VM
> >    support uncertain. (DSA)
> >    - Source: [DSA Sprint report]
> Fedora is facing an issue running armhf under virtualization on arm64:
>   <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572916>

I think you mean:


>   <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-06/msg00036.html>
> Unless the discussion has moved somewhere where I can't follow it, no
> one seems to have solid idea what is going on. 

True. Looking at comment #22, the suggestion seems to be that the guest is
doing something wrong, and kvm is being terrible at pinpointing the source.

> It's also not clear that this configuration has substantial vendor or
> community support. This makes me concerned that virtualization is a viable
> path forward here.

I understand your concern. It would be surprising if this specific bug doesn't
get found and fixed. It's probably stuck because everyone thinks it's 
probably someone elses bug ;)

I still think the armhf vm on arm64 is the only reasonable path forward medium
term. The existing arm64 hw that suport arm32 vm's is still around and
infinitely better than native aarch32 builder hw, and should still be viable
for some time. 


Reply to: