lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:13:36 +0300 From: Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi> To: Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux@...ts.openrisc.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] next: openrisc: Fix build On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:51:49PM +0200, Jonas Bonn wrote: > On 09/26/2014 06:05 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > openrisc:defconfig fails to build in next-20140926 with the following error. > > > > In file included from arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c:31:0: > > ./arch/openrisc/include/asm/syscall.h: In function 'syscall_get_arch': > > ./arch/openrisc/include/asm/syscall.h:77:9: error: 'EM_OPENRISC' undeclared > > > > Fix by moving EM_OPENRISC to include/uapi/linux/elf-em.h. > > > > Fixes: ce5d112827e5 ("ARCH: AUDIT: implement syscall_get_arch for all arches") > > Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> > > Cc: Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi> > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> > > Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> > > --- > > v2: Only move EM_OPENRISC. > > > > Another possible solution for the problem would be to include asm/elf.h > > in arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c. I had actually submitted a patch with > > that fix back in August (maybe that is where I remembered the problem from). > > Wonder what happened with that patch. > > > > Would it make sense to drop EM_OR32 and replace it with EM_OPENRISC where > > it is used ? binutils seems to suggest that EM_OPENRISC is the "official" > > definition. > > Do we even use EM_OR32? Will the kernel build with the old toolchain if > we drop it? If yes, drop it altogether... I don't recall the details as > to why we kept that define around at all. And really, why bother > supporting the old toolchain at all... it's been at least two or three > years since EM_OPENRISC was added, hopefully people have moved on. If > users want to upgrade their kernel, they can update the toolchain, too, > at this point. > EM_OPENRISC was added about ten years ago, and when the OR32 things in binutils was removed in favour for OR1K earlier this year, EM_OR1K was added as an alias to EM_OPENRISC. With that said, I'm putting in a vote for removing EM_OR32 as well. Stefan -- 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