linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current 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:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:44:34 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:51:19 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (lots of
> configuations) failed like this:
> 
> (from the i386 defconfig build)
> 
> In file included from include/linux/memcontrol.h:29:0,
>                  from include/linux/swap.h:9,
>                  from include/linux/suspend.h:5,
>                  from arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.c:13:
> include/linux/mm.h: In function 'get_mm_hiwater_rss':
> include/linux/mm.h:1569:9: error: first argument to '__builtin_choose_expr' not a constant
> include/linux/mm.h: In function 'get_mm_hiwater_vm':
> include/linux/mm.h:1574:9: error: first argument to '__builtin_choose_expr' not a constant
> 
> and many more ...
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>   c7c133f3d5ff ("kernel.h: skip single-eval logic on literals in min()/max()")
> (and perhaps the folloups)
> 
> Just a few of my builds actaully worked (including those I do
> during the day).  For complete logs see
> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/head/13556/ .
> 
> I guess it could be compiler version specific.  The failing ones are
> done with gcc 4.6.3.  My successful ones with gcc 7.3.1.

Yes, this is being a pain in the butt.  I guess we should drop the
patches for now.