linux-kernel - Re: strace build error static assertion failed: "XFRM_MSG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211007055753.GR36125@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 07:57:53 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
CC:     Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        Eugene Syromyatnikov <evgsyr@...il.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: strace build error static assertion failed: "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING !=
 0x26"

On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:51:24AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:48:16AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:43:11PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > When compiling strace-5.14 (although it looks like the same problem 
> > > would exist with bleeding edge strace) with headers from the tip of 
> > > Linus's tree (5.15.0-rc4) I get the following error
> > > 
> > > strace: In file included from static_assert.h:11,
> > > strace:                  from print_fields.h:12,
> > > strace:                  from defs.h:1901,
> > > strace:                  from netlink.c:10:
> > > strace: xlat/nl_xfrm_types.h:162:1: error: static assertion failed: 
> > > "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING != 0x26"
> > > strace:  static_assert((XFRM_MSG_MAPPING) == (0x26), "XFRM_MSG_MAPPING 
> > > != 0x26");
> > > strace:  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 
> > > It looks like commit 2d151d39073a ("xfrm: Add possibility to set the 
> > > default to block if we have no policy") added some XFRM messages and the 
> > > numbers shifted. Is this considered an ABI breakage?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure if this is a strace problem or a linux problem so I'm 
> > > reporting it in both places.
> > 
> > Yes, this is already covered by 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210912122234.GA22469@asgard.redhat.com/T/#u
> > 
> > Thanks,
> 
> I wonder, why the fix hasn't been merged yet, though.

That was due to a delay on my side. I've just sent a pull request
with the fix included.