linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ecryptfs 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190514105649.512267cd@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 10:56:49 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ecryptfs tree

Hi all,

[excessive quoting for new CC's]

On Tue, 14 May 2019 09:40:53 +0900 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:16 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know why this suddenly appeared after mergeing the ecryptfs tree
> > since nothin has changed in that tree for some time (and nothing in that
> > tree seems relevant).
> >
> > After merging the ecryptfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > scripts/Makefile.modpost:112: target '.tmp_versions/asix.mod' doesn't match the target pattern
> > scripts/Makefile.modpost:113: warning: overriding recipe for target '.tmp_versions/asix.mod'
> > scripts/Makefile.modpost:100: warning: ignoring old recipe for target '.tmp_versions/asix.mod'
> > scripts/Makefile.modpost:127: target '.tmp_versions/asix.mod' doesn't match the target pattern
> > scripts/Makefile.modpost:128: warning: overriding recipe for target '.tmp_versions/asix.mod'
> > scripts/Makefile.modpost:113: warning: ignoring old recipe for target '.tmp_versions/asix.mod'
> > make[2]: Circular .tmp_versions/asix.mod <- __modpost dependency dropped.
> > Binary file .tmp_versions/asix.mod matches: No such file or directory
> > make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.modpost:91: __modpost] Error 1
> > make[1]: *** [Makefile:1290: modules] Error 2
> >
> > The only clue I can see is that asix.o gets built in two separate
> > directories (drivers/net/{phy,usb}).  
> 
> Module name should be unique.
> 
> If both are compiled as a module,
> they have the same module names:
> 
> drivers/net/phy/asix.ko
> drivers/net/usb/asix.ko
> 
> If you see .tmp_version directory,
> you will see asix.mod
> 
> Perhaps, one overwrote the other,
> or it already got broken somehow.

So, the latter of these drivers (drivers/net/phy/asix.c) was added in
v4.18-rc1 by commit

  31dd83b96641 ("net-next: phy: new Asix Electronics PHY driver")

If we can't have 2 modules with the same base name, is it too late to
change its name?

I am sort of suprised that noone else has hit this in the past year.

> > I have the following files in the object directory:
> >
> > ./.tmp_versions/asix.mod
> > ./drivers/net/usb/asix.ko
> > ./drivers/net/usb/asix.mod.o
> > ./drivers/net/usb/asix.o
> > ./drivers/net/usb/asix_common.o
> > ./drivers/net/usb/asix_devices.o
> > ./drivers/net/usb/.asix.ko.cmd
> > ./drivers/net/usb/.asix.mod.o.cmd
> > ./drivers/net/usb/.asix.o.cmd
> > ./drivers/net/usb/asix.mod.c
> > ./drivers/net/usb/.asix_common.o.cmd
> > ./drivers/net/usb/.asix_devices.o.cmd
> > ./drivers/net/phy/asix.ko
> > ./drivers/net/phy/asix.o
> > ./drivers/net/phy/.asix.ko.cmd
> > ./drivers/net/phy/.asix.mod.o.cmd
> > ./drivers/net/phy/asix.mod.o
> > ./drivers/net/phy/asix.mod.c
> > ./drivers/net/phy/.asix.o.cmd
> >
> > ./.tmp_versions/asix.mod
> >
> > Looks like this:
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > drivers/net/phy/asix.ko
> > drivers/net/phy/asix.o
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > What you can't see above are the 256 NUL bytes at the end of the file
> > (followed by a NL).
> >
> > This is from a -j 80 build.  Surely there is a race condition here if the
> > file in .tmp_versions is only named for the base name of the module and
> > we have 2 modules with the same base name.
> >
> > I removed that file and redid the build and it succeeded.
> >
> > Mind you, I have no itdea why this file was begin rebuilt, the merge
> > only touched these files:
> >
> > fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c
> > fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> >
> > Puzzled ... :-(

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped