linux-kernel - Re: make headers_install broken for ARCH=m68k in 2.6.29-rc7.

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: <10f740e80903130514k194fbdackd373d2951a9f76ba@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:14:32 +0100
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Greg Ungerer <gerg@...pgear.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org
Subject: Re: make headers_install broken for ARCH=m68k in 2.6.29-rc7.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:52, Greg Ungerer <gerg@...pgear.com> wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:33:18AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:25, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 05:04:57PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>>>>> I pretty quick time I can fix up the last couple on the above list.
>>>>> But do we want to put all that change into 2.6.29-rc at this point?
>>>>
>>>> In general we do not want to have headers_check broken in mainline,
>>>
>>> headers_check is not broken, headers_install is.
>>>
>>> Hmm, in some sense headers_check _is_ broken, as it doesn't notice
>>> headers_install
>>> installs headers that refer to other headers that are not installed...
>>
>> This is what scripts/headers_check are supposed to do - strange.
>>
>>> Greg, I had a quick look at your signcontext.h and signal.h merge, and
>>> the MMU
>>> part seems to be OK.
>>>
>>> However, some of the installed headers still have checks for CONFIG_MMU:
>>>
>>> param.h:#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
>>> sigcontext.h:#ifndef CONFIG_MMU
>>> sigcontext.h:#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
>>> siginfo.h:#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
>>> siginfo.h:#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
>>> siginfo.h:#endif /* CONFIG_MMU */
>>> swab.h:#elif defined(CONFIG_MMU)
>>>
>>> so these have to be added to the generic unifdef-y list (is that
>>> include/asm-generic/Kbuild.asm?).
>
> Hmmm, yes your right.
>
>
>> include/asm-generic/Kbuild.asm impacts all architectures so be carefull
>> there.
>> It looks like some updates to arch/m68k/include/asm/Kbuild is needed,
>> and not the generic list of files to export.
>>
>> Also use og CONFIG_MMU suprises me.
>> We used #ifdef __uClinux__ in the non-merged headers to avoid use
>> of a CONFIG_* symbol that is not valid outside the kernel namespace.
>> So if param.h in m68k uses CONFIG_MMU it is broken.
>
> I have been trying to use CONFIG_MMU wherever possible (so for non-
> exported headers), since that matches what is actually in the code
> proper. I am concerned at the longer term use of __uClinux__ for
> distinguishing MMU and non-MMU. I plan on switching to use a normal
> m68k toolchain soon. And it won't define __uClinux__ on its own.
> (I already do this on ARM for example - same toolchain on both
> MMU an non-MMU).
>
> What I have done so far is or the most part a very simple merge
> of the files. I know there is room for some improvements in quite a
> few of these files.
>
> The use of CONFIG_MMU in swab.h (is this actually exported to user
> space?) is not actually for code that is MMU or non-MMU. It is
> actually architecture specific. Most ColdFire parts don't have the
> "rolw" instruction. The condition test can be better. Geert, any
> ideas on what is more appropriate here?

The `rolw' variant is already protected by `#if defined
(__mcfisaaplus__) || defined (__mcfisac__)',
so I think you can replace the `#elif defined(CONFIG_MMU)' by a plain `#else'.
Or are there cases where you don't want to have __arch_swab32 at all?

> I can switch back to using __uClinux__ on siginfo.h and sigcontext.h.
> If I am not mistaken we can't change these structures without breaking
> backwards compatibility?  The sigcontext change is particularly ugly :-(

Copying the signal experts on linux-m68k...

> Similarly for param.h, it looks like a switch back to using
> __uClinux__ for now is the only option.
>
> Now after these fixups should I create a git branch with these header
> merges in for inclusion into 2.6.29-rc?  To fix the regression we
> only need to do the handful of files that Rob listed, right?

Yes.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/