linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] kernel.h: handle pointers to arrays better in container

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: <20170524115916.4c7abeab29ddd73adc59f762@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2017 11:59:16 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>
Cc:     kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
        Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] kernel.h: handle pointers to arrays better in
 container_of()

On Wed, 24 May 2017 11:46:17 +0100 Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk> wrote:

> This breakage occurs when <asm-generic/bug.h> is included before 
> <include/linux.h> due to a circular dependancy I introduced with this 
> commit.
> 
> It can be fixed by replacing the `#include <linux/kernel.h>` with 
> `#include <linux/types.h>` in "include/asm-generic/bug.h".  I can send a 
> patch to fix that, but ideally, it should be committed before this 
> commit to avoid breakage during git bisect builds.  So my question is, 
> should I send a single patch to fix this breakage, or resend the series 
> of patches to incorporate this fix before the current commit?

I expect a full resend would be best - that way the test robot should
be able to parse and retest it in the usual fashion.