Date:	Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:09:51 -0800
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch added to -mm tree

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:07 PM,  <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Subject: + makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch added to -mm tree
> To: JBeulich@...e.com,jbeulich@...e.com,keescook@...omium.org,mingo@...nel.org,mmarek@...e.cz
> From: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:07:52 -0800
>
>
> The patch titled
>      Subject: Makefile: fix build with make 3.80 again
> has been added to the -mm tree.  Its filename is
>      makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch
>
> This patch should soon appear at
>     http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch
> and later at
>     http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch
>
> Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
>    a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
>    b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
>    c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
>       reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
>
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
>
> The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
> there every 3-4 working days
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
> Subject: Makefile: fix build with make 3.80 again
>
> According to Documentation/Changes, make 3.80 is still being supported for
> building the kernel, hence make files must not make (unconditional) use of
> features introduced only in newer versions.  Commit 8779657d
> ("stackprotector: Introduce CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG") however
> introduced an "else ifdef" construct which make 3.80 doesn't understand.
>
> Also correct a warning message still referencing the old config option
> name.
>
> Apart from that I question the use of "ifdef" here (but it was used that
> way already prior to said commit): ifeq (,y) would seem more to the point.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
>
>  Makefile |    3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff -puN Makefile~makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again Makefile
> --- a/Makefile~makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again
> +++ a/Makefile
> @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ endif
>  ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR
>    stackp-flag := -fstack-protector
>    ifeq ($(call cc-option, $(stackp-flag)),)
> -    $(warning Cannot use CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR: \
> +    $(warning Cannot use CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR: \
>               -fstack-protector not supported by compiler)
>    endif
>  else ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
> @@ -618,6 +618,7 @@ else
>    # Force off for distro compilers that enable stack protector by default.
>    stackp-flag := $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector)
>  endif
> +endif
>  KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(stackp-flag)
>
>  # This warning generated too much noise in a regular build.
> _
>
> Patches currently in -mm which might be from JBeulich@...e.com are
>
> makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch
>

This appears to be missing the:

-else ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
+else
+ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG

chunk?

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists