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: <49594AD5.8070204@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:10:29 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.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)

James Bottomley wrote:
> 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

That's correct.  config file is now attached.

> 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.

-- 
~Randy

View attachment "config-r7617" of type "text/plain" (51886 bytes)