linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/107] 4.9.120-stable review

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:40:45 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     s.gottschall@...wrt.com, Sven Joachim <svenjoac@....de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/107] 4.9.120-stable review

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:42:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > Also seen in mainline. Meaning my non-SMP test builds are broken. Hmm.
> 
> Grr. I think it's due mainly due to commit 447ae3166702 ("x86: Don't

Yes. It was a side effect of adding many more boot tests. Now fixed.
Too late of course.

> include linux/irq.h from asm/hardirq.h"), which exposes a number of
> files that had some dodgy include file dependenencies, and just
> randomly happened to get it right because of that odd include that
> caused problems.
> 
> That commit itself is definitely the right thing to do, but yes, we
> clearly had a lot of cases of things getting core header files
> included purely by luck.
> 
> And because this was all done under embargo, we didn't get the kind of
> test robot coverage we usually get.
> 
> Part of it can also be due to subtle merge issues - even if the
> original branch got good coverage, later changes sometimes ended up
> adding things like that.
> 
> For example, my merge of the L1TF code found that in the meantime,
> arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c had added a call to kzalloc(), which used
> to work just fine, but with the header cleanup it turned out that
> kvmclock.c had never included <linux/slab.h>, so now it didn't build
> right.
> 
> And that was just the one I noticed because of my limited build tests.
> 
> And yes, every single developer has CONFIG_SMP in their config, but
> perhaps equally importantly, I suspect CONFIG_SMP ends up getting more
> header files included almost by mistake, so it can _continue_ to hide
> these kinds of incomplete header file includes that just happen to
> work.
> 
> > Anyway, care to send a proper patch ? I am sure Linus will be more
> > than happy to apply it.
> 
> I think "happy" is too strong a word for my state of mind with all
> this, but yes, I'll apply it, and you'll get the glory of fixing some
> configuration that clearly didn't get properly tested.
> 

I went ahead and submitted a patch, with proper attribution. Let me know
if you didn't get it.

> In the meantime, maybe I should just do a "make allmodconfig" and then
> disable SMP and see if that shows anything for me.
> 

I did that and didn't find any other errors.

Guenter