linux-kernel - Bisecting tip/auto-x86-next?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <485AFC9B.7090502@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:40:59 -0300
From:	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Bisecting tip/auto-x86-next?

Hi,

I am trying to track down a problem I reported here:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/431

None or you were cc'd on the original report because I had no idea of 
the source of the issue.  However, I have now narrowed down the problem 
to the auto-x86-next tree.  Thus I did something like:

$ git bisect start
$ git bisect good linus/master
$ git bisect bad tip/auto-x86-next

which resulted in only about 170 or so revisions to test (sounds better 
than the 3000 or so that -next wanted me to bisect through).  However, 
when I tried to compile the bisect-chosen commit, I get:

------------------

In file included from include/asm/thread_info.h:5,
                  from include/linux/thread_info.h:47,
                  from include/linux/preempt.h:9,
                  from include/linux/spinlock.h:49,
                  from include/linux/seqlock.h:29,
                  from include/linux/time.h:8,
                  from include/linux/stat.h:60,
                  from include/linux/module.h:10,
                  from crypto/sha1_generic.c:20:
include/asm/thread_info_64.h: In function ‘set_restore_sigmask’:
include/asm/thread_info_64.h:189: warning: passing argument 2 of 
‘set_bit’ from incompatible pointer type

-----------------

Can I ignore these warnings and keep building the kernel anyway?  Or is 
there a way to work around this problem?  Am I allowed to cherry pick a 
particular commit to apply on top of the bisect-chosen commit, or will 
that ruin the process?  Can I manually choose a bisection point right 
after this warning was fixed?  Is it likely that the fix for this 
warning will get rearranged in the tree before Linus pulls it so that 
other don't run into this same bisection problem?

Is that enough questions?

Thanks,

-- 
Kevin Winchester

--
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/