linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] uml: fix W=1 missing-include-dirs warnings

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: <c3d41808-111c-c4dd-43fb-459ae56fc9ab@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 00:01:12 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uml: fix W=1 missing-include-dirs warnings

On 4/14/21 11:52 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:27 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Currently when using "W=1" with UML builds, there are over 700 warnings
>> like so:
>>
>>   CC      arch/um/drivers/stderr_console.o
>> cc1: warning: ./arch/um/include/uapi: No such file or directory [-Wmissing-include-dirs]
>>
>> but arch/um/ does not have include/uapi/ at all, so don't
>> include arch/um/include/uapi/ in USERINCLUDE for UML.


>> Option 4: simply mkdir arch/um/include/uapi
>>         That's what I did first, just as a test, and it works.
> 
> 
> I like Option 4.
> 
> But, you cannot do "mkdir -p arch/um/include/uapi" at build-time
> because the build system should not touch the source tree(, which
> might be read-only)
> for O= building.
> 
> How about adding
> 
>   arch/um/include/uapi/asm/Kbuild,
> 
> which is just having a SPDX one-liner?

Wow!  :)
That's what Al Viro suggested also.
I'll submit that patch later today (Thursday my time).

thanks.
-- 
~Randy