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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <21450528-06b7-4964-b975-5f4ab113373a@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:43:39 +0100
From: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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

On 28/02/2025 18:14, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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. ;-)

Ah that would explain it! Naughty mailbox eating patches :)

> 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.

Great, thank you!

- Kevin