linux-kernel - Re: patching kdb to Centos kernel : error

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]

Message-ID: <23408.1218955331@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:42:11 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Satish Eerpini <eerpini@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: patching kdb to Centos kernel : error

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:30:41 +0530, Satish Eerpini said:
> hi everyone , i was trying to patch kdb with CentOS 5.0 kernel
> (2.6.18-8) 

You might want to make sure you're using a 2.6.18-vintage kdb patch, as
trying to fit a 2.6.26 kdb onto a 2.6.18 kernel is unlikely to bring joy.

> resolve) ,.... but apart from the rejects during the kernel
> compilation i got the following error which does not seem to have
> anything to do with the rejects ............

No, the rejects during the patch are almost certainly related to your
compile errors...

>  the code(in kdb/modules/kdbm_pg.c) which is causing the second error
> is something like this :
> 
>              iaddr += offsetof(struct inode, u);
> 
> what i am not able to understand is that if 'u' is not a correct
> member of the inode , .. then what did they( whoever wrote this piece
> code) intend by 'u' ? , .....

Your kdb patch probably includes a patch to include/linux/fs.h that adds a
member 'u' to a 'struct inode'.  If this generated a reject, then the member 'u'
won't be in the struct, and your compile dies...

> and for the first error , ... i just checked out the code ....
> according to the line no shown in the error .....the code is :
> 
>              kdb_page_flags(page, Checked);
> 
> and i don't see any function PageChecked ....! so what can the error
> actually mean ??

kdb_page_flags is probably a macro that does something like:

#define kdb_page_flags(a,b) (..... Page##b)

The 'implicit declaration' is most likely a missing #include someplace,
which again hints at the rejects from a misapplied patch...

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped