linux-kernel - Re: [rft, PATCH v1 1/1] cpumask: Don't use "proxy" headers

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: <aScd1jqsMJmQbUEi@yury>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 10:33:42 -0500
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [rft, PATCH v1 1/1] cpumask: Don't use "proxy" headers

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 09:59:16AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:42:23AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 04:17:51PM -0500, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 09:39:59PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 
> > > > Not fully compile tested, might give some compilation errors
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > -#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > 
> > > I recall, removing kernel.h from cpumasks was a troublesome exercise
> > > back then. But it may be my false memory.
> > 
> > Yeah, there are several headers that are too tangled together.
> > At least it builds on my configurations on x86_64.
> > 
> > > Added this for testing in bitmap-for-next.
> > 
> > Thanks, let's see how it will go. But note that it might fall the builds in
> > some cases.
> 
> So, we survived already a couple of Linux Next integration builds, I believe
> we are quite okay with this change and if anything appears, it can be fixed
> in a followups.

Yeah. I'll just keep the patch in my branch, so hopefully it will land
in mainline in the next merge cycle.

Thanks,
Yury