linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.30-rc2: [PATCH] ARM OABI compatibility: fix build 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: <20090415092942.GJ6058@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:29:42 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias@...hlcke.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.30-rc2: [PATCH] ARM OABI compatibility: fix build
	error

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:12:23AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> El Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:03:07AM +0100 Russell King - ARM Linux ha dit:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:33:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > Building for ARM with CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT enabled fails due to a
> > > missing include:
> > 
> > Yes, lots of people have been whinging about this over the last six days,
> > but I'm only just catching up since returning from an Easter break.
> > 
> > Does anyone know /when/ this breakage happened, or even better what caused
> > it?
> 
> a week ago i build v2.6.30-rc1 based on the same .config without
> running into this issue. if i find some time i'll try bisecting it

Hmm, I think it's caused by 47788c58e66c050982241d9a05eb690daceb05a9.

The commit message looks rather interesting, including:

    arch/ia64/ia32/ia32priv.h:290:1: warning: "elf_check_arch" redefined
    arch/ia64/include/asm/elf.h:19:1: warning: this is the location of the previous definition

surely the right answer is to only have _one_ definition of this thing,
rather than two which may be different?  IOW, how do you know for certain
which definition gets used where.

Not sure that I totally agree with the rationale in this commit, but I
guess we have to live with it because it's x86.

Now, others have been putting out patches to solve the ARM build problem
caused by the above commit, including one which includes linux/slab.h
instead of linux/mm.h.  That seems to be a better fix than needlessly
including lots of other stuff via linux/mm.h.  I notice that akpm picked
up the linux/slab.h version yesterday.
--
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/