linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.5 102/170] scripts/dtc: Remove redundant YYLOC global declaration

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: <20200331120917.GA1617997@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:09:17 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dirk Müller <dmueller@...e.com>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.5 102/170] scripts/dtc: Remove redundant YYLOC global
 declaration

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:45:09PM +0200, Dirk Müller wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> >> $ sed -i 's;scripts/dtc/dtc-lexer.l;scripts/dtc/dtc-lexer.lex.c_shipped;g' \
> >> queue-{4.4,4.9,4.14}/scripts-dtc-remove-redundant-yyloc-global-declaration.patch
> >> If you would prefer a set of patches, let me know.
> > Should I just drop the patch from 4.4, 4.9, and 4.14 instead?
> 
> as the original author of the patch, I am not sure why it was backported to the LTS releases (unless enablement for gcc 10.x or
> other new toolchains is a requirement, which I'm not aware of). 

Keeping the older kernels building with newer compilers is something
that we do.  It's needed as our build systems "age-out" the older
compilers a lot :)

> However I think the sed above on the *patch* means that the patch will *only* modify the generated sources, not the input sources. I think
> it would be better to patch both *input* and *generated* sources, or backport the generate-at-runtime patch as well (which might be
> even further outside the stable policy). 

What do you mean by "input sources" here?

> Not knowing why it was backported, I would suggest to just dequeue the patch from the older trees. 

If I drop it for now, I'll have to add it back when gcc10 is pushed out
to my build systems and laptops :(

thanks,

greg k-h