linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the mm-nonmm-unstable tree

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: <cb27cd02-d439-9eb7-d393-79b399affcf7@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2026 09:09:21 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
    Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
    Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, x86@...nel.org, 
    Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
    Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the mm-nonmm-unstable
 tree

On Fri, 2 Jan 2026, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

> 
> In this case, I'd prefer it if we added a helper, rather than 
> duplicating the same check 3 times.

Yes, and the next patch in that series did add that helper. I didn't want 
to rewrite Peter's patch and drop his authorship credit, so I added the 
helper in my own patch... but being that Peter still hasn't sent a 
signed-off-by tag, I should probably fold those patches together and take 
the authorship credit/blame myself.

> But in this check, testing for __DISABLE_EXPORTS is perfectly 
> reasonable: it is already used in this manner across architectures.
> 

I think Sasha's objection was valid, in that bug table entries are said to 
be emitted, whereas symbols and interfaces are exported (and imported). 
But I agree that he may have overlooked the precendent for such use/abuse 
of that macro e.g. in arch/x86/include/asm/ibt.h.

Ard, what do you think about __DISABLE_BUG_TABLE? Shall I change it back 
to __DISABLE_EXPORTS if/when I resubmit this series? I'm ambivalent about 
it.