[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200730061407.GA7941@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:14:07 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the origin tree
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 05:22:50AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 08:17:48PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > And just another heads-up, the patch[1] (which was never sent to a public
> > list) also breaks arm64 (circular header needs?):
> (...)
>
> Definitely, we've just got a report about this, I'll have a look once
> I'm at the office. I'd like to check that we don't obviously break
> another arch by just removing percpu. If at least shuffling them around
> is sufficient that'd be nice. Otherwise we'll likely need a separate
> header (which is not a bad thing for the long term).
So Linus proposed a clean solution which might be harder to backport
but looks better for 5.8. However the attached one addresses the issue
for me on arm64 and still works on x86_64, arm, mips. I think we should
go with this one first then apply Linus' one on top of it to be long
term proof, and backport only the first one. Linus ?
Willy
View attachment "0001-random-fix-circular-include-dependency-on-arm64-afte.patch" of type "text/plain" (1696 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists