linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the keys 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: <16836.1567440079@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 02 Sep 2019 17:01:19 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux USB Mailing List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the keys tree

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> The forward declararion doesn't seem to work (at laste for the
> !CONFIG_USB_NOTIFICATIONS case.

In the !CONFIG_USB_NOTIFICATIONS case, the argument is to a stub inline
function.  Even though the argument isn't actually used, it can't be an
undefined type - and, I'm guessing, an undefined size, meaning the compiler
doesn't know how many registers/how much stack space it would occupy before
getting to the error argument.

I have a fix for this in my tree that just makes it an unsigned int in the
disabled case:

static inline void post_usb_device_notification(const struct usb_device *udev,
						unsigned int subtype, u32 error) {}

> +#include <linux/watch_queue.h>

I was trying to avoid that if I could to avoid introducing the possibility of
circular deps, but that might not be a problem in this case.

> I then discovered that I needed to install libkeyutils-dev :-( but it
> built OK after that.

?  The kernel shouldn't require that to build.

David