[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <c78916da-ee59-4ecb-9886-7bbc7f077fa5@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 10:12:47 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@...hat.com>, "Rudi Heitbaum" <rudi@...tbaum.com>
Cc: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...nel.org>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>, "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@...belt.com>, "Albert Ou" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"Andreas Schwab" <schwab@...e.de>, "Florian Weimer" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, "WANG Xuerui" <kernel@...0n.name>,
"Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] syscalls: fix syscall macros for newfstat/newfstatat
On Sat, Aug 3, 2024, at 10:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 03, 2024 at 05:14:41AM +0000, Rudi Heitbaum wrote:
>> With this patch to kernel 6.11-rc1 the error whilst compiling gcc-14.2 for
>> aarch64 with libsanitizer has changed from '__NR_newfstatat' to
>> '__NR_fstat', so some change, but still fail8ng.
>>
>> sanitizer_syscall_linux_aarch64.inc:13:23: error: '__NR_newfstatat' was not declared in this scope
>> 13 | #define SYSCALL(name) __NR_ ## name
>> | ^~~~~
>>
>> sanitizer_syscall_linux_aarch64.inc:13:23: error: '__NR_fstat' was not declared in this scope
>> 13 | #define SYSCALL(name) __NR_ ## name
>> | ^~~~~
>
Thanks for the report!
Yes, I think I messed it up again by changing both fstatat and
fstat. Our internal names in the kernel are a bit inconsistent
and I failed to realize that only newfstatat uses the "new" name
in the user-facing macro.
> Probably it would be useful to check
> echo '#include <asm/unistd.h>' | gcc -E -dD -xc - | grep '#define __NR_' | sort
> for all arches between 6.10 and the latest git, diff them and resolve any
> unintended differences.
Right, I should have done that before the original series really:
I spent a lot of time validating the kernel's internal changes for
consistency (which found a dozen bugs that were unrelated to my
series) but missed the unintended changes to the external header
contents.
I'll do that now and send another fixup.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists