linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] next: openrisc: Fix build

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140927041334.GA16373@chokladfabriken.org>
Date:	Sat, 27 Sep 2014 07:13:36 +0300
From:	Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>
To:	Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux@...ts.openrisc.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] next: openrisc: Fix build

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:51:49PM +0200, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 09/26/2014 06:05 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > openrisc:defconfig fails to build in next-20140926 with the following error.
> >
> > In file included from arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c:31:0:
> > ./arch/openrisc/include/asm/syscall.h: In function 'syscall_get_arch':
> > ./arch/openrisc/include/asm/syscall.h:77:9: error: 'EM_OPENRISC' undeclared
> >
> > Fix by moving EM_OPENRISC to include/uapi/linux/elf-em.h.
> >
> > Fixes: ce5d112827e5 ("ARCH: AUDIT: implement syscall_get_arch for all arches")
> > Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>
> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> > Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > ---
> > v2: Only move EM_OPENRISC.
> >
> > Another possible solution for the problem would be to include asm/elf.h
> > in arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c. I had actually submitted a patch with
> > that fix back in August (maybe that is where I remembered the problem from).
> > Wonder what happened with that patch.
> >
> > Would it make sense to drop EM_OR32 and replace it with EM_OPENRISC where
> > it is used ? binutils seems to suggest that EM_OPENRISC is the "official"
> > definition.
> 
> Do we even use EM_OR32?  Will the kernel build with the old toolchain if
> we drop it?  If yes, drop it altogether... I don't recall the details as
> to why we kept that define around at all.  And really, why bother
> supporting the old toolchain at all... it's been at least two or three
> years since EM_OPENRISC was added, hopefully people have moved on.  If
> users want to upgrade their kernel, they can update the toolchain, too,
> at this point.
> 

EM_OPENRISC was added about ten years ago, and when the OR32 things in binutils
was removed in favour for OR1K earlier this year,
EM_OR1K was added as an alias to EM_OPENRISC.

With that said, I'm putting in a vote for removing EM_OR32 as well.

Stefan
--
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/