linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/438] 6.12.43-rc2 review

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: <63e25fdb-095a-40eb-b341-75781e71ea95@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:12:27 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
	lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
	f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
	srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org,
	hargar@...rosoft.com, broonie@...nel.org, achill@...ill.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.12 000/438] 6.12.43-rc2 review

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:31:21PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.43 release.
> There are 438 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
> 
> Responses should be made by Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:27:16 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 

Build reference: v6.12.43
Compiler version: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc (GCC) 14.3.0
Assembler version: GNU assembler (GNU Binutils) 2.44

Configuration file workarounds:
    "s/CONFIG_FRAME_WARN=.*/CONFIG_FRAME_WARN=0/"

Building arm:allmodconfig ... failed
--------------
Error log:
drivers/net/can/ti_hecc.c: In function 'ti_hecc_start':
drivers/net/can/ti_hecc.c:386:21: error: implicit declaration of function 'BIT_U32'; did you mean 'BIT_ULL'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
  386 |         mbx_mask = ~BIT_U32(HECC_RX_LAST_MBOX);
      |                     ^~~~~~~
      |                     BIT_ULL

There is no BIT_U32 in v6.12.y. The same build error is seen in v6.15.11,
which is also missing the definition of BIT_U32. Odd that no one seems
to have noticed this. Am I missing something ?

Guenter