linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the aio 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]

Date:	Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:55:15 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the aio tree

Hi Ben,

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:18:21 -0500 Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:25:31AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:23:16PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
> > > Via the aio tree (git://git.kvack.org/~bcrl/aio-next.git#master) added
> > > in July 2013 at Ben's request.  The code was added to the aio tree in
> > > Jan 12 (my time), but has never been in a published linux-next tree due
> > > to the above build problem (I back out to the previous days version of
> > > the aio tree).  
> > 
> > Well, it's code Ben posted a few days ago, which to say it mildly is
> > rather controversial.  It's cetainly not 4.5 material.  
> 
> It still needs the exposure.

If it is not destined for v4.5, then it should not (yet) be in
linux-next.  It should wait until after v4.5-rc1 is released (the merge
window closes).  I would also argue that if the functionality itself is
still under active review (and I haven't competely followed the
discussion so I don't know where that is up to, but Christoph, at
least, seems not completely convinced), then it should also not yet be
in linux-next.

> As for the build failure, it's a bug in the arch __get_user() implementation 
> that needs to be fixed.  __get_user() should really be able to handle 64 bit 
> types.

Yeah, it is a bit weird.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au