linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of almost all the trees

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: <CAK8P3a39gZLWdh03_mL51qj6w+LYSPQ+T+d0t4wn8zgeSPhtqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 14:11:50 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Anton Altaparmakov <anton@...era.com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of almost all the trees

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 1:19 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 23:13:07 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 08:06:10 +0100 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:44 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > It does need to be changed a bit as I realized it depends on a rework of
> > > the Kconfig logic that I had in my randconfig build tree to have a common
> > > page size symbol across architectures. Without my other patch, it also
> > > needs to check for PPC_64K_PAGES.
> > >
> > > Should I send an updated version of the patch?
> >
> > That would be good, thanks.
> >
> > Even better would be to split up the function some how, but having had
> > a bit of a look at it, that may be a much longer job.

Yes, that was my initial conclusion when I looked at the code trying to
redo that loop.

> > I am assuming
> > that allocations (or their failure) are out of the question in that
> > particular function.
>
> Looking again, we probably just need to disable CONFIG_NTFS_RW ...

Ah right, that would work as well. Another possibility would be
to change NTFS_BLOCK_SIZE to 4096, at least in the affected configurations.

According to the documentation I linked to in my commit, file system images
with smaller block sizes should be extremely rare, but I have no idea if the
code would work correctly for normal images after that change.

        Arnd