linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ext4 tree

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: <20130816171448.GA13841@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:14:48 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc:	"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@...e.fr>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>, sedat.dilek@...il.com,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux kbuild ML <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ext4 tree

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 03:10:38PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> On 11.8.2013 23:39, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > On 2013-08-09 13:42 +0200, Sam Ravnborg spake thusly:
> >> If we drop the special handling of "MODULES" and introduced
> >> the following in we may fix it - hopefully:
> >>
> >> config MODULES
> >> 	option modules
> >>
> >> The option handling is already in place. It is even documented :-)
> > 
> > Yes, indeed, that one is pretty easy! :-)
> > 
> >> At least we could then drop the sym_lookup here (zconf.y):
> >>         if (!modules_sym->prop) {
> >>                 struct property *prop;
> >>
> >>                 prop = prop_alloc(P_DEFAULT, modules_sym);
> >>                 prop->expr = expr_alloc_symbol(sym_lookup("MODULES", 0));
> >>         }
> >> Without the sym_lookup I think the symbol will not be defined and tus not marked valid.
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't understand what we should do here.
> > 
> > From what I understand, here's what happens:
> >   - there's no symbol that declared the 'modules' option, so the
> >     modules_sym->prop is NULL;
> >   - so we look for the symbol 'MODULES' and use that as the symbol used
> >     to evaluate if tristates are enabled.
> > 
> > So, now we have 'option modules' added to MODULES, we never enter this
> > if() condition.
> > 
> > But what would happen to other projects that do not have a symbol set
> > with 'option modules' and no 'MODULES' symbol? Surely, those projects do
> > not need tristates, but what should the code do in this case?
> > 
> > So, I don't know what to replace this 'sym_lookup("MODULES", 0)' with.
> 
> If the Kconfig files do not provide any symbol with 'option modules',
> then set modules_sym to a dummy bool with the value 'n'?
This is my thinking too - to use the symbol "n".
But I wanted to try it out - but so far have not had time for it.

	Sam
--
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/