linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 16 (lib/842/842

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: <CALZtONCW9gwbGg_Yzb-QbcNq4bOajKjS8d4-XYz0sw5bFP0rQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:12:08 -0500
From:	Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>
To:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 16 (lib/842/842_decompress)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> On 12/18/15 06:32, Dan Streetman wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/15 21:43, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Changes since 20151215:
>>>>
>>>> The drm-misc tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
>>>>
>>>> The i2c tree gained a build failure for which I applied a patch.
>>>>
>>>> The gpio tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
>>>> next-20151215.
>>>>
>>>
>>> on i386, when CONFIG_PRINTK is not enabled:
>>>
>>>
>>> ../lib/842/842_decompress.c: In function '__do_index':
>>> ../lib/842/842_decompress.c:205:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'no_printk' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>   pr_debug("index%x to %lx off %lx adjoff %lx tot %lx data %lx\n",
>>>   ^
>>
>> Hmm, it's not failing for me, can you send your config?
>
> Attached.
>
> FYI, I had 5 of these failures in 20 randconfig builds.

Heh, ok I figured it out, the pr_debug() uses a macro for one of its
params, which internally calls WARN, which then calls printk
again...in the case of no printk, that makes the macro no_printk() try
to recursively call no_printk()...

I'll remove the WARN so there's not a printk-inside-a-printk.

thanks!

>
>
> --
> ~Randy
--
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/