linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for December 29 (cxgb3i)

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: <1230587467.3302.67.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:51:07 -0600
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kxie@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for December 29 (cxgb3i)

On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 12:35 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:16:21 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Changes since 20081219:
> > 
> > Undropped tree:
> > 	scci
> > 	mtd
> > 
> > Dropped trees (temporarily):
> > 	nfs (akpm request due to 2.6.30 features)
> > 	kvm (build problem)
> > 	rr (build poblem)
> > 	semaphore-removal (due to unfixed conflicts against Linus' tree)
> > 	cpu_alloc (build problem)
> > 	audit (difficult conflicts)
> > 
> > Linus' tree had three build failures requiring patches and one requiring
> > a revert.
> 
> 
> linux-next-20081229/drivers/scsi/cxgb3i/cxgb3i_offload.c:499: error: 'struct sk_buff' has no member named 'sp'
> linux-next-20081229/drivers/scsi/cxgb3i/cxgb3i_offload.c:512: error: 'struct sk_buff' has no member named 'sp'
> linux-next-20081229/drivers/scsi/cxgb3i/cxgb3i_offload.c:532: error: 'struct sk_buff' has no member named 'sp'
> linux-next-20081229/drivers/scsi/cxgb3i/cxgb3i_offload.c:533: error: 'struct sk_buff' has no member named 'sp'

In the config 20 questions, my guess for this is CONFIG_XFRM=n

I'm not at all sure why this driver is playing with the secure path ...
I suspect the use needs to be enclosed in #ifdef CONFIG_XFRM pairs, but
I'd like the maintainers to verify.

James


--
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/