linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the arm64 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87o90k5mab.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 17:27:40 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the arm64 tree

Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> writes:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 02:52:40PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> writes:
>> > Although Alpha, Itanic and PowerPC all override NM, only PowerPC does it
>> > conditionally so I agree with you that passing '--synthetic' unconditionally
>> > would resolve the problem and is certainly my preferred approach if mpe is
>> > ok with it.
>> 
>> I'd rather we keep passing --synthetic, otherwise there's the potential
>> that symbols go missing that were previously visible.
>
> Yup -- that was my suggestion above.
>
>> I think we can keep the new_nm check, but drop the dependency on
>> CONFIG_PPC64, and that will fix it. Worst case is we start passing
>> --synthetic on ppc32, but that's probably not a problem.
>> 
>> This seems to fix it for me, and 32-bit builds fine.
>
> Brill, thanks for confirming!
>
>> Do you want me to send a proper patch for this, or do you want to squash
>> it into the original series?
>
> I'd prefer not to rebase the arm64 queue, so if you send this as a proper
> patch, please, then I can queue it on top before reverting the hack we
> currently have.

Cool, just sent a patch.

cheers