linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc 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: <CALCETrUUyWLC4pC67hGUjzO_XhKf=wYSM4YZMTXyYGMtwwLUPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 19:57:24 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the
 luto-misc tree

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> Em Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:53:33AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell escreveu:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:21:57 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:45:51 -0300 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > >  #if BITS_PER_LONG != __BITS_PER_LONG
>> > > +#include <linux/stringify.h>
>> > > +#pragma message "BITS_PER_LONG=" __stringify(BITS_PER_LONG)
>> > > +#pragma message "__BITS_PER_LONG=" __stringify(__BITS_PER_LONG)
>> > >  #error Inconsistent word size. Check asm/bitsperlong.h
>> > >  #endif
>
>> > I added those three lines to the file (just in yesterday's linux-next
>> > was easiest) and got this:
>
>> > /home/sfr/next/next/tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h:14:9: note: #pragma message: BITS_PER_LONG=(8 * 8)
>> >  #pragma message "BITS_PER_LONG=" __stringify(BITS_PER_LONG)
>
>> > /home/sfr/next/next/tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h:15:9: note: #pragma message: __BITS_PER_LONG=32
>> >  #pragma message "__BITS_PER_LONG=" __stringify(__BITS_PER_LONG)
>
>> > (a few times, of course)
>
>> So I applied this:
>
>> +++ b/tools/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h
>> @@ -4,6 +4,12 @@
>>  #if defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ILP32__)
>>  # define __BITS_PER_LONG 64
>>  #else
>> +#ifndef __x86_64__
>> +#pragma message "__x86_64__ is not defined"
>> +#endif
>> +#ifdef __ILP32__
>> +#pragma message "__ILP32__ is defined"
>> +#endif
>>  # define __BITS_PER_LONG 32
>>  #endif
>
>> and got this:
>
>> /home/sfr/next/next/tools/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h:8:9: note: #pragma message: __x86_64__ is not defined
>>  #pragma message "__x86_64__ is not defined"
>
> Humm, it seems that the compiler used is not the cross one, but the
> native, check if, say, __powerpc__ is defined.
>

This is still vdso2c, right?  It's a hostprog.

This stuff is utterly screwed up.  We're building a hostprog for an
x86_64 kernel cross-compiled from powerpc.  We should presumably be
pullng in powerpc's uapi headers for hostprogs because it's a *host*
prog.

--Andy

> - Arnaldo



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC