linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs: debugfs: fix build error at powerpc platform

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <b795ed61-0174-487f-a263-8431e7c76af5@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 01 Oct 2023 11:42:04 -0400
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Baoquan He" <bhe@...hat.com>, "Frank Li" <Frank.Li@....com>
Cc:     "Vinod Koul" <vkoul@...nel.org>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "kernel test robot" <lkp@...el.com>, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs: debugfs: fix build error at powerpc platform

On Sun, Oct 1, 2023, at 07:22, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 09/29/23 at 12:49pm, Frank Li wrote:
>>    ld: fs/debugfs/file.o: in function `debugfs_print_regs':
>>    file.c:(.text+0x95a): undefined reference to `ioread64be'
>> >> ld: file.c:(.text+0x9dd): undefined reference to `ioread64'
>
> From your reproducer, on x86_64, GENERIC_IOMAP is selected. So the
> default version of ioread64 and ioread64be in asm-generic/io.h are
> bypassed. Except of those arch where ioread64 and ioread64be are
> implemented specifically like alpha, arm64, parisc, power, we may need
> include include/linux/io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h or
> include/linux/io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h to fix above linking issue?
>
> From my side, below change can fix the issue. However, I am not quite
> sure which one is chosen between io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h and 
> io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h.

It looks like the latest version of the patch only calls
it for 64-bit targets, so this question should not come up.

On 32-bit targets, it is driver specific which one you need,
so having it generic code would require passing a flag from
a driver, but I think that adds more complexity than it help.

     Arnd