linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs 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: <31225.1537460458@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:20:58 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree

Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:

> I realise these are in samples rather than selftests, but what most of
> the selftests do is just #define the syscall number if it's not defined,
> so that you're not dependent on getting the headers.

The reason I don't want to do that is that syscall numbers aren't consistent
across arches - they aren't even consistent within arches.

I've made the VFS samples contingent on X86 in Kconfig for the moment.

David