linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/75] 4.14.5-stable review

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: <20171209171349.GA26021@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:13:49 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Ivan Kozik <ivan@...ios.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 00/75] 4.14.5-stable review

On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 07:56:40AM +0000, Ivan Kozik wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 03:34:24AM +0000, Ivan Kozik wrote:
> >> I saw no problems on 8 of 9 machines, but the last one had a problem
> >> because it used NVIDIA drivers (387); DKMS reported:
> >>
> >> FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module nvidia-drm.ko uses GPL-only
> >> symbol 'ex_handler_refcount'
> >> //usr/src/linux-headers-4.14.0-11-common/scripts/Makefile.modpost:92:
> >> recipe for target '__modpost' failed
> >> make[3]: *** [__modpost] Error 1
> >
> > Is this a new issue?  Does 4.14.4 have this issue?
> 
> I believe it is a new issue, because I have a 4.14.4 build and an
> NVIDIA DKMS log for that 4.14.4 showing build success.
> 
> > Odd, is 564c9cc84e2a ("locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Use unique .text
> > section for refcount exceptions") causing this?
> 
> That was my guess too, but I did not verify.

That feels really wrong here, I'd like to get some confirmation before I
add this patch...

thanks,

greg k-h