linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 19/22] drm: restore CONFIG_DRM_USE_DYNAMIC

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: <CAJfuBxzq_5skGRkcdK9kJBE_qL8X_waq88XsUO-FHyVQkQUb4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 14:21:13 -0600
From:   jim.cromie@...il.com
To:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc:     oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
        daniel@...ll.ch, jbaron@...mai.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, jani.nikula@...el.com,
        linux@...musvillemoes.dk, seanpaul@...omium.org, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 19/22] drm: restore CONFIG_DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
 un-BROKEN

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 1:14 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>
> hi, Jim Cromie,
>
> we send this report to you to consult that if there is any limitation to use
> this CONFIG_DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG?
> attached config is a randconfig which has CONFIG_DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG, the
> kernel built with it failed to boot in our tests, but we also tested with some
> other config then the issue cannot reproduce.
>

Theres no limitation I know of - particularly not CONFIG related

on an earlier version, I saw some odd transient / red-herring
linker-errors (collisions on __UNIQUE_ID constructs)
on s390, mips, older gcc (iirc - I could go find it in lkp-reports if
its meaningful)
that had me hacking at the fallback which uses __LINE__
But this seems different.