linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: Fix link error when CONFIG

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: <251eb7e20d91ae9c539bde847ea102a53af82b94.camel@iokpp.de>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 23:42:14 +0100
From: Bean Huo <beanhuo@...pp.de>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: avri.altman@...disk.com, bvanassche@....org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, 
	jejb@...ux.ibm.com, can.guo@....qualcomm.com, beanhuo@...ron.com, 
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot
	 <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: Fix link error when CONFIG_RPMB=m

On Mon, 2025-12-01 at 12:25 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> Hi Bean!
> 
> > When CONFIG_SCSI_UFSHCD=y and CONFIG_RPMB=m, the kernel fails to link
> > with undefined references to ufs_rpmb_probe() and ufs_rpmb_remove():
> > 
> >   ld: drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c:8950: undefined reference to
> > `ufs_rpmb_probe'
> >   ld: drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c:10505: undefined reference to
> > `ufs_rpmb_remove'
> > 
> > The issue occurs because IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RPMB) evaluates to true
> > when CONFIG_RPMB=m, causing the header to declare the real function
> > prototypes.
> 
> This now breaks the modular build for me.
> 

Hi Martin,

I tested both IS_BUILTIN and IS_REACHABLE for the RPMB dependencies both work
correctly in my configuration.

IS_REACHABLE would provide more flexibility for module configurations, but in
practice, I don't have experience with UFS being used as a module.

Would you prefer IS_REACHABLE for theoretical flexibility, or is IS_BUILTIN
acceptable given the typical UFS built-in configuration?

Kind regards,
Bean