linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/mm: Remove unnecessary include in set

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: <Z8Hu8oDHRnLx_gxm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:14:26 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bp@...en8.de,
	dan.j.williams@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	david@...hat.com, jane.chu@...cle.com, osalvador@...e.de,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/mm: Remove unnecessary include in set_memory.h

* Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com> wrote:

> On 27/02/2025 14:03, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> So I tried to pick up this patch belatedly, but there's more places 
> >> that mistakenly learned to rely on the stray <linux/mm.h> inclusion, 
> >> for example on x86 defconfig-ish kernels:
> >>
> >>
> >>   In file included from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c:6:
> >>   ./arch/x86/include/asm/set_memory.h:40:57: error: unknown type name ‘pgprot_t’
> >>   40 | int __set_memory_prot(unsigned long addr, int numpages, pgprot_t prot);
> >>   |                                                         ^~~~~~~~
> 
> This patch relies on patch 1 in this series, which removes 
> __set_memory_prot(). I seem to be able to build x86_64_defconfig 
> without issue with both patches applies on the latest mainline.

Oh, the 1/2 patch was missing from my mailbox (my mbox's fault, not yours),
and apparently the 'PATCH 2/2' tag wasn't a big enough of a clue for me
that there's a dependent patch. ;-)

Anyway, I re-tested it with both patches applied and it's all looking 
good now, and I have applied them to tip:x86/headers.

Thanks,

	Ingo