linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: fix EDEADLOCK redefinition error in uapi/asm/errno.h

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: <CAPGftE_JthCCWdH8sgTNp7WVcuUu7zPCpmG1KWZ8iovcEwSd2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:00:26 -0700
From:   Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@...il.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: fix EDEADLOCK redefinition error in uapi/asm/errno.h

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 03:41, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@...il.com> writes:
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > The latest version of this patch addressed all feedback I'm aware of
> > when submitted last September, and I've seen no further comments from
> > reviewers since then.
> >
> > Could you please let me know where this stands and if anything further
> > is needed?
>
> Sorry, it's still sitting in my inbox :/
>
> I was going to reply to suggest we split the tools change out. The
> headers under tools are usually updated by another maintainer, I think
> it might even be scripted.
>
> Anyway I've applied your patch and done that (dropped the change to
> tools/.../errno.h), which should also mean the stable backport is more
> likely to work automatically.
>
> It will hit mainline in v5.13-rc1 and then be backported to the stable
> trees.
>
> I don't think you actually need the tools version of the header updated
> to fix your bug? In which case we can probably just wait for it to be
> updated automatically when the tools headers are sync'ed with the kernel
> versions.
>
> cheers

I appreciate the follow up. My original bug was indeed with the tools
header but is being patched locally, so waiting for those headers to
sync with the kernel versions is fine if it simplifies things overall.

Thanks,
Tony