linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 42/86] scripts/gdb: fix lx-symbols gdb.error while loading modules

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: <20200727143700.rtouw4mgim4kjmeb@steredhat>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:37:00 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Kieran Bingham <kbingham@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 42/86] scripts/gdb: fix lx-symbols gdb.error while
 loading modules

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 03:26:42PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Hi Greg, Sasha,
> 
> On 27/07/2020 15:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> > 
> > [ Upstream commit 7359608a271ce81803de148befefd309baf88c76 ]
> > 
> > Commit ed66f991bb19 ("module: Refactor section attr into bin attribute")
> > removed the 'name' field from 'struct module_sect_attr' triggering the
> > following error when invoking lx-symbols:
> 
> 
> Has ed66f991bb19 ("module: Refactor section attr into bin attribute")
> been backported to 4.19? It doesn't /sound/ like something that would
> require backporting unless something else depended up on it,  but if it
> hasn't been ... then *this* patch shouldn't be either...
> 
> Same for 5.4, and 5.7 that's just come in.
> 
> This patch will 'apply' cleanly, and not hit any compilation errors, as
> it only changes python code... so my reason to highlight is in case some
> automated system picked it up based on those assumptions.
> 
> If ed66f991bb19 has also been backported, then I'm sorry for the noise ;-)
> 

I had the same doubt, but I just saw that ed66f991bb19 was backported to
the stable branches (4.19, 5.4 and 5.7), so I think this backport is
correct.

Thanks,
Stefano