linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/18] 4.19.234-rc1 review

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: <YijwKvDQxJzoYpFR@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 19:21:30 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, slade@...dewatkins.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/18] 4.19.234-rc1 review

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 06:15:08PM +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:08 PM Sudip Mukherjee
> <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:03 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.234 release.
> > > There are 18 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > >
> > > Responses should be made by Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:58:48 +0000.
> > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >
> > My tests are still running, but just an initial result for you,
> >
> > x86_64 defconfig fails with:
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c: In function 'spectre_v2_select_mitigation':
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c:973:41: error: implicit declaration of
> > function 'unprivileged_ebpf_enabled'
> > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   973 |         if (mode == SPECTRE_V2_EIBRS && unprivileged_ebpf_enabled())
> 
> And, lots of failures in arm builds also.
> Error:
> arch/arm/common/secure_cntvoff.S: Assembler messages:
> arch/arm/common/secure_cntvoff.S:24: Error: co-processor register
> expected -- `mcr p15,0,r0,c7,r5,4'
> arch/arm/common/secure_cntvoff.S:27: Error: co-processor register
> expected -- `mcr p15,0,r0,c7,r5,4'
> arch/arm/common/secure_cntvoff.S:29: Error: co-processor register
> expected -- `mcr p15,0,r0,c7,r5,4'
> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:403:
> arch/arm/common/secure_cntvoff.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S: Assembler messages:
> arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S:178: Error: co-processor register
> expected -- `mcr p15,0,r0,c7,r5,4'
> arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S:187: Error: co-processor register
> expected -- `mcr p15,0,r0,c7,r5,4'
> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:403:
> arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> arch/arm/mm/cache-v7.S: Assembler messages:
> arch/arm/mm/cache-v7.S:64: Error: co-processor register expected --
> `mcr p15,0,r0,c7,r5,4'
> arch/arm/mm/cache-v7.S:137: Error: co-processor register expected --
> `mcr p15,0,r0,c7,r5,4'
> arch/arm/mm/cache-v7.S:171: Error: co-processor register expected --
> `mcr p15,0,r0,c7,r5,4'
> arch/arm/mm/cache-v7.S:299: Error: co-processor register expected --
> `mcr p15,0,r0,c7,r5,4'
> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:403: arch/arm/mm/cache-v7.o] Error 1

All clang builds for arm are known to fail, and some arm64 clang builds
will also fail.  I have seen initial patches for arm64, will let the
clang developers come up with the arm fix as I have no idea how to
handle that.  This just mirrors Linus's tree right now :)

Unless this is gcc?

thanks,

greg k-h