linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the printk 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: <20200624081929.GD8444@alley>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:19:29 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the printk tree

On Wed 2020-06-24 10:20:58, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:28:58PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > It is similar cycle:
> > 
> > spinlock_types.h -> lockdep.h -> printk.h -> ratelimit.h -> spinlock_types.h
> > 
> > But this time it happens via list.h -> kernel.h ->printk.h.
> > Where list.h needs READ_ONCE() stuff from compiler.h.
> 
> But this is exactly the loop that's fixed by the lockdep_types
> patch.

I think that this problem is similar to the one on s390 that was
solved by compiler.h in arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h

It is related to
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200613142901.65xieioomt6bbqa6@ltop.local

It seems that we need the same change also in list.h.


> Did you get a compile failure with *just* the lockdep
> patch?

No, I see the problem only with both patches.


> > PS: And yes, it makes sense to push both patches via a single tree to
> > make sure that the lockdep.h split is done first.
> 
> OK, can I repost this patch with your ack then?

Do you mean to repost the 2nd patch with the change in
include/linux/list.h?

This would be great.

Best Regards,
Petr