linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 28 (arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/mobility.c)

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: <CAD=FV=WCHp=T+6SVdzDgRDRoJ-82uWYB0hv_jWMB19jw3hXbsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:51:54 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 28 (arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/mobility.c)

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 1:40 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 2023-06-28 22:07:17, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/27/23 21:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Please do *not* add any v5.6 related stuff to your linux-next included
> > > branches until after v5.5-rc1 has been released.
> > >
> > > Changes since 20230627:
> > >
> >
> > on powerpc64, when
> > # CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR is not set:
> >
> > ../arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/mobility.c: In function 'pseries_migrate_partition':
> > ../arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/mobility.c:753:17: error: implicit declaration of function 'watchdog_hardlockup_set_timeout_pct'; did you mean 'watchdog_hardlockup_stop'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   753 |                 watchdog_hardlockup_set_timeout_pct(factor);
> >       |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >       |                 watchdog_hardlockup_stop
> > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> >
> >
> > Full randconfig file is attached.
> >
> >
> > If I blatantly modify include/linux/nmi.h with these comments, it builds OK:
> >
> > //#if defined(CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH) || defined(CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_SPARC64)
> > #include <asm/nmi.h>
> > //#endif
>
> This is well describes the probem.
>
> The decision whether to include asm/nmi.h should not depend only on
> CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_* when it is needed also for other stuff.
>
> Well, it could not be always included because it exists only
> on 4 architectures:
>
> $> ls -1 arch/*/include/asm/nmi.h
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/nmi.h
> arch/s390/include/asm/nmi.h
> arch/sparc/include/asm/nmi.h
> arch/x86/include/asm/nmi.h
>
> and include/asm-generic/nmi.h. does not exist.
>
> I see two reasonable solutions:
>
> 1. We either create an empty "include/asm-generic/nmi.h" and
>    always include asm/nmi.h in linux/nmi.h.
>
>    It looks is a bit weird but it might be the easiest solution
>    unless it creates another problems elsewhere.
>
>
> 2. Explicitely include asm/nmi.h where needed, in
>    arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/mobility.c and maybe somewhere as
>    well.
>
>    It is already done in many cases:
>
> $> git grep asm/nmi.h
> arch/Kconfig:     asm/nmi.h, and defines its own arch_touch_nmi_watchdog().
> arch/powerpc/kernel/mce.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/watchdog.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kernel/entry.S:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kernel/idle.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kernel/nmi.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kernel/process.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kernel/setup.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kernel/smp.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/sparc/kernel/pcr.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/sparc/kernel/perf_event.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/events/amd/core.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/events/amd/ibs.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/events/core.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/inject.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perfctr-watchdog.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/crash.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/kgdb.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi_selftest.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/process.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> arch/x86/platform/uv/uv_nmi.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_watchdog.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> drivers/edac/igen6_edac.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> drivers/s390/cio/cio.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> drivers/watchdog/hpwdt.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> include/linux/nmi.h:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> include/linux/nmi.h:#include <asm/nmi.h>
> kernel/sysctl.c:#include <asm/nmi.h>
>
> I would personally prefer the 2nd variant.

Yes, this seems right to me. I'm always inclined to get build failures
fixed ASAP, so I've posted a patch for it:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230629124500.1.I55e2f4e7903d686c4484cb23c033c6a9e1a9d4c4@changeid


> I am going to check other locations where it might be needed.

If you find anything else, we can either do a v2 or another patch.

-Doug