linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

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: <52ff1782-98e8-71fb-873e-f75610d200c2@hisilicon.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:42:16 +0800
From:   Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

Hi Geert,

On 2019/2/21 16:03, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Shaokun,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:45 AM Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com> wrote:
>> On 2019/2/20 18:05, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:58, Jarkko Sakkinen
>>> <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:52:52AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 05:11:15PM +0800, Zhangshaokun wrote:
>>>>>> There is a compiler failure on arm64 platform, as follow:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   AS      arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.o
>>>>>>   CC      kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
>>>>>> In file included from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:0:
>>>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:176:7: error: redeclaration of enumerator ‘NONE’
>>>>>>   hook(NONE)   \
>>>>>>        ^
>>>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:188:34: note: in definition of macro ‘__ima_hook_enumify’
>>>>>>  #define __ima_hook_enumify(ENUM) ENUM,
>>>>>>                                   ^
>>>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:191:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘__ima_hooks’
>>>>>>   __ima_hooks(__ima_hook_enumify)
>>>>>>   ^
>>>>>> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h:15:0,
>>>>>>                  from ./include/acpi/acpi_io.h:7,
>>>>>>                  from ./include/linux/acpi.h:47,
>>>>>>                  from ./include/linux/tpm.h:26,
>>>>>>                  from security/integrity/ima/ima.h:25,
>>>>>>                  from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:
>>>>>> ./include/linux/efi.h:1716:2: note: previous definition of ‘NONE’ was here
>>>>>>   NONE,
>>>>>>   ^
>>>>>> scripts/Makefile.build:276: recipe for target 'security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o' failed
>>>>>> make[3]: *** [security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o] Error 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dug it and it is the commit 901615cb916d ("tpm: move tpm_chip definition to include/linux/tpm.h")
>>>>>
>>>>> This results from a new include in tpm.h:
>>>>>
>>>>>   #include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> Must be fixed either in include/linux/efi.h or security/integrity/ima.h as
>>>>> those files have a name collision. Makes me wonder why neither has taken
>>>>> care of prefixing the constants properly.
>>>>
>>>> Preferably both subsystems should be fixed with proper 'EFI_' and 'IMA_'
>>>> prefixes. Defining a constant named as NONE in a non-generic subsystem
>>>> (e.g. not part of the core data structures of Linux) and especially
>>>> exporting it to include/linux is not too well considered act.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fixes for this have already been proposed, and should appear in -next shortly
>>>
>>> The EFI one is here
>>> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/linux-efi/FMfcgxwBVgrQRjglPkWRqRqVclGgVDnB
>>>
>>
>> Because of no privilege, the website is denied for me. Anyway, it's nice to have been fixed.
> 
> Looks like Ard posted a link to a label in his personal gmail mailbox?
> 

Hmm, it seems that, my bad understanding.

Thanks your reply.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
>