| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200903161521.00036.rob@landley.net> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:20:58 -0500 From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> To: Greg Ungerer <gerg@...pgear.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, 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 Monday 16 March 2009 07:40:19 Greg Ungerer wrote: > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > 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? > > Not all ColdFire fit into '(__mcfisaaplus__) || defined (__mcfisac__)' > so #else won't be good enough. Though I suspect it is true that the > older m68k varients (68328, etc) can do "rolw" - or I am I mistaken on > that? > > >> 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. > > Ok, I have created a git branch for this as: > > The following changes since commit > 5bee17f18b595937e6beafeee5197868a3f74a06: Kyle McMartin (1): > parisc: sba_iommu: fix build bug when CONFIG_PARISC_AGP=y > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gerg/m68knommu.git > fix-includes > > Greg Ungerer (8): > m68k: merge the non-MMU and MMU versions of param.h > m68k: merge the non-MMU and MMU versions of swab.h > m68k: merge the non-MMU and MMU versions of sigcontext.h > m68k: merge the non-MMU and MMU versions of siginfo.h > m68k: use MMU version of setup.h for both MMU and non-MMU > m68k: merge the non-MMU and MMU versions of ptrace.h > m68k: merge the non-MMU and MMU versions of signal.h > m68k: use the MMU version of unistd.h for all m68k platforms > > arch/m68k/include/asm/param.h | 25 ++- > arch/m68k/include/asm/param_mm.h | 22 -- > arch/m68k/include/asm/param_no.h | 22 -- > arch/m68k/include/asm/ptrace.h | 88 ++++++++- > arch/m68k/include/asm/ptrace_mm.h | 80 ------- > arch/m68k/include/asm/ptrace_no.h | 87 -------- > arch/m68k/include/asm/setup.h | 377 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > arch/m68k/include/asm/setup_mm.h | 376 > -------------------------------- > arch/m68k/include/asm/setup_no.h | 10 - > arch/m68k/include/asm/sigcontext.h | 25 ++- > arch/m68k/include/asm/sigcontext_mm.h | 19 -- > arch/m68k/include/asm/sigcontext_no.h | 17 -- > arch/m68k/include/asm/siginfo.h | 95 ++++++++- > arch/m68k/include/asm/siginfo_mm.h | 92 -------- > arch/m68k/include/asm/siginfo_no.h | 6 - > arch/m68k/include/asm/signal.h | 216 ++++++++++++++++++- > arch/m68k/include/asm/signal_mm.h | 206 ------------------ > arch/m68k/include/asm/signal_no.h | 159 -------------- > arch/m68k/include/asm/swab.h | 30 +++- > arch/m68k/include/asm/swab_mm.h | 16 -- > arch/m68k/include/asm/swab_no.h | 24 -- > arch/m68k/include/asm/unistd.h | 377 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > arch/m68k/include/asm/unistd_mm.h | 372 > -------------------------------- > arch/m68k/include/asm/unistd_no.h | 372 > -------------------------------- > 24 files changed, 1206 insertions(+), 1907 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/param_mm.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/param_no.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/ptrace_mm.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/ptrace_no.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/setup_mm.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/setup_no.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/sigcontext_mm.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/sigcontext_no.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/siginfo_mm.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/siginfo_no.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/signal_mm.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/signal_no.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/swab_mm.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/swab_no.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/unistd_mm.h > delete mode 100644 arch/m68k/include/asm/unistd_no.h > > > I have only patched those files that I saw mentioned in the previous > emails in this thread. > > Geert, can you check an m68k build? > Rob, can you check that you can build what you used to be able to? Nope. Pulled the repository, tarred it up, stuck it in my build system, and the uClibc build still dies attempting to generate syscalls: GEN include/bits/sysnum.h In file included from <stdin>:1: /home/landley/firmware/firmware/build/cross-compiler- m68k/include/asm/unistd.h:4:23: error: unistd_mm.h: No such file or directory In file included from <stdin>:1: /home/landley/firmware/firmware/build/cross-compiler- m68k/include/asm/unistd.h:4:23: error: unistd_mm.h: No such file or directory ERROR: Could not generate syscalls. Rob -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists