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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:47:05 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org Subject: sparc64: Build failure due to commit f1600e549b94 (sparc: Make sparc64 use scalable lib/iommu-common.c functions) Hi all, I see the following build failure when compiling sparc64:allmodconfig in the upstream kernel (v4.0-7820-g04b7fe6a4a23). arch/sparc/kernel/pci_sun4v.o:(.discard+0x1): multiple definition of `__pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash' arch/sparc/kernel/iommu.o:(.discard+0x0): first defined here make[2]: *** [arch/sparc/kernel/built-in.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [arch/sparc/kernel] Error 2 The problem is caused by commit f1600e549b94 ("sparc: Make sparc64 use scalable lib/iommu-common.c functions"), which introduces static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, iommu_pool_hash); in both files. DEFINE_PER_CPU translates to DEFINE_PER_CPU_SECTION, which in turn is defined as #define DEFINE_PER_CPU_SECTION(type, name, sec) \ __PCPU_DUMMY_ATTRS char __pcpu_scope_##name; \ extern __PCPU_DUMMY_ATTRS char __pcpu_unique_##name; \ --> __PCPU_DUMMY_ATTRS char __pcpu_unique_##name; \ extern __PCPU_ATTRS(sec) __typeof__(type) name; \ __PCPU_ATTRS(sec) PER_CPU_DEF_ATTRIBUTES __weak \ __typeof__(type) name if CONFIG_DEBUG_FORCE_WEAK_PER_CPU is configured, which is the case here. The marked line above shows that __pcpu_unique_iommu_pool_hash is declared as global variable, which explains the problem (and makes me wonder what the 'static' keyword in front of DEFINE_PER_CPU is supposed to accomplish). I thought about fixing the problem by renaming one of the variables, but I am not sure if that is what is intended. Specifically, I am not sure if the variables are supposed to be different, as it looks like, or if they are supposed to be the same. In case it is relevant, I use gcc version 4.6.3 for my build test. Guenter -- 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