linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ptrace: Cleanups for v5.18

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: <CAHk-=wj2u3MT5Ukaw9aAB-0oSs9S58kuRNqqy5AL-GTn9LNGkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:33:52 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ptrace: Cleanups for v5.18

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 4:56 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> The removal of tracehook.h is quite significant as it has been a major
> source of confusion in recent years.  Much of that confusion was
> around task_work and TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL (which I have now decoupled
> making the semantics clearer).

Hmm. I love removing tracehook.c, but this looks like it hasn't been
in linux-next.

The header file changes messes with other changes, and we have

  kernel/sched/fair.c:2884:9: error: implicit declaration of function
‘init_task_work’; did you mean ‘init_irq_work’?
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   2884 |         init_task_work(&p->numa_work, task_numa_work);
        |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~

as a result (also a few other things in that same file).

Now, this is trivial to fix - just add an include for
<linux/task_work.h> from that file - and that's the right thing to do
anyway.

But I'm a bit unhappy that this was either not tested in linux-next,
or if it was, I wasn't notified about the semantic in the pull
request.

So I've pulled this, and fixed up things in my merge, but I'm a bit
worried that there might be other situations like this where some
header file is no longer included and it was included implicitly
before through that disgusting tracehook.h header..

I *hope* it was just the scheduler header file updates that ended up
having this effect, and nothing else is affected.

Let's see if the test robots start complaining about non-x86
architecture-specific stuff that I don't build test.

              Linus