linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block 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: <2c4503f8-8284-2578-3622-03529cc8bffe@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:11:32 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

On 06/28/2017 08:01 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 06/28/2017 06:43 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 06/28/2017 02:04 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> After merging the block tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
>>> allnoconfig) failed like this:
>>>
>>> fs/fcntl.o: In function `do_fcntl': 
>>> fcntl.c:(.text+0x6d4): undefined reference to `__get_user_bad'
>>> fcntl.c:(.text+0x730): undefined reference to `__get_user_bad'
>>>
>>> Probably caused by commit
>>>
>>>   c75b1d9421f8 ("fs: add fcntl() interface for setting/getting write life time hints")
>>>
>>> On powerpc (at least) you cannot use get_user() to fetch anything larger
>>> than "unsigned long" i.e. 32 bits on 32 bit powerpc.
>>>
>>> This has been discussed before (and, I think, a fix attempted).
>>
>> Gah, thanks for letting me know. I'll test your patch and queue it
>> up to fix this issue.
> 
> But put_user() is fine? Just checking here, since the change adds
> both a u64 put and get user.

I just changed all 4, at least that provides some symmetry in how
we copy things in and out for that set of fcntls.

-- 
Jens Axboe