linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip 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, 2 Jul 2019 12:28:32 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:33:02PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> fs/btrfs/ctree.c: In function '__tree_mod_log_insert':
> fs/btrfs/ctree.c:388:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'lockdep_assert_held_exclusive'; did you mean 'lockdep_assert_held_once'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   lockdep_assert_held_exclusive(&fs_info->tree_mod_log_lock);
>   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   lockdep_assert_held_once
> 
> Caused by commit
> 
>   9ffbe8ac05db ("locking/lockdep: Rename lockdep_assert_held_exclusive() -> lockdep_assert_held_write()")
> 
> interacting with commits
> 
>   84cd7723de7c ("btrfs: assert tree mod log lock in __tree_mod_log_insert")
>   283d2e443505 ("btrfs: assert extent map tree lock in add_extent_mapping")

I can move the patches out of the for-5.3 branch and send them
separately after the rename gets merged, they're merely adding the
assertion and otherwise do not affect the rest of the code.

Fixing that in another way would probably need more synchronization
between the branches but I don't think it's necessary in this case. The
next for-next snapshot branch will fix the compilation issue.