linux-kernel - Re: Compat-wireless release for 2011-08-01 is (NOT) baked

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAB=NE6WyTKPx+0yt5P1ponajKUd70eqFJQLwH8s1_2hfPkoBTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Aug 2011 16:34:22 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
To:	Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>
Cc:	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
	Nicolas Palix <Nicolas.Palix@...ia.fr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Compat-wireless release for 2011-08-01 is (NOT) baked

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Roskin <proski@....org> wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 03:04 PM, Compat-wireless cronjob account wrote:
>>
>>  From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next
>>  + d7c6e83...c39a889 akpm-end   ->  origin/akpm-end  (forced update)
>>    55f9c40..3da3f87  akpm-start ->  origin/akpm-start
>>  + cf684c9...346346f master     ->  origin/master  (forced update)
>>    55f9c40..3da3f87  stable     ->  origin/stable
>>  * [new tag]         next-20110801 ->  next-20110801
>> /usr/bin/sha1sum: *.tar.bz2: No such file or directory
>

Right, this failed to build the compat-wireless daily tarball based on
linux-next.git due to a failed hunk:

Applying backport patch: patches/01-netdev.patch
patching file drivers/net/usb/rndis_host.c
patching file drivers/net/usb/usbnet.c
patching file drivers/net/wireless/rndis_wlan.c
patching file net/mac80211/iface.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 698.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 846 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #3 succeeded at 885 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 1136 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 1146 (offset 1 line).
1 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file net/mac80211/iface.c.rej
patching file drivers/net/b44.c
patching file net/wireless/wext-core.c
patching file drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.c
patching file drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c
patching file drivers/net/wireless/iwmc3200wifi/netdev.c
patching file drivers/net/wireless/libertas/main.c
patching file drivers/net/wireless/libertas/mesh.c
patching file drivers/net/wireless/libertas/defs.h
patching file drivers/net/wireless/mac80211_hwsim.c
patching file drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/main.c
patching file drivers/net/wireless/orinoco/main.c
patching file net/bluetooth/bnep/netdev.c
Hunk #2 FAILED at 235.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
net/bluetooth/bnep/netdev.c.rej
patching file drivers/net/atl1e/atl1e_main.c
patching file drivers/net/atl1c/atl1c_main.c
patching file drivers/net/atlx/atl1.c
patching file drivers/net/atlx/atl2.c
Patching patches/01-netdev.patch failed, update it

Whenever we have a failed hunk we run into this. I think we can do
better, we could break down 01-netdev.patch into one a coccinelle
spatch for example and then the rest to be handled separately, this
may help speed with making us lazier and making the backup even more
automatic.

For example:

mcgrof@tux ~/linux-next (git::master)$ cat netdev-attach.cocci
@@
expression ptr, ops;
@@
...
-ptr->netdev_ops = ops;
+netdev_attach_ops(ptr, ops);
...

mcgrof@tux ~/linux-next (git::master)$ spatch -sp_file
netdev-attach.cocci -in_place drivers/net/usb/rndis_host.c
init_defs_builtins: /usr/share/coccinelle/standard.h
HANDLING: drivers/net/usb/rndis_host.c
diff =
--- drivers/net/usb/rndis_host.c        2011-04-25 11:44:25.713248001 -0700
+++ /tmp/cocci-output-14779-d7a728-rndis_host.c 2011-08-01
16:30:48.342283464 -0700
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ generic_rndis_bind(struct usbnet *dev, s
        dev->rx_urb_size &= ~(dev->maxpacket - 1);
        u.init->max_transfer_size = cpu_to_le32(dev->rx_urb_size);

-       net->netdev_ops = &rndis_netdev_ops;
+       netdev_attach_ops(net, &rndis_netdev_ops);

        retval = rndis_command(dev, u.header, CONTROL_BUFFER_SIZE);
        if (unlikely(retval < 0)) {

Question then is -- are we willing to require spatch for building the
tarballs? I'm OK with this, anyone else?

  Luis
--
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/