linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/irqflags: Fix build failure

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: <eafe3459-9135-4774-9453-8c252d7eb5a9@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:29:37 +0100
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/irqflags: Fix build failure

On 15.01.26 18:45, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 05:10:14PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> When building with CONFIG_PARAVIRT, but without CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL,
>> a build failure might happen due to arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h
>> only including asm/paravirt.h when CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL is set.
>>
>> This was spotted when testing a patch removing the
>> "#include <asm/paravirt.h>" from another header.
>>
>> Fixes: 22cc5ca5de52 ("x86/paravirt: Move halt paravirt calls under CONFIG_PARAVIRT")
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202601152203.plJOoOEF-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> So this got reported against a patchset which is not upstream yet, yet your
> Fixes: points to a patch from ~year ago.

Yes. The problem was introduced by that patch. It was pure luck paravirt.h
got included via another header.

> The right thing to do would be to take *that* fix and prepend your
> not-upstrea-yet set with it.

Yes, this would be a possibility. I still can do that, but I saw no real reason
to resend the other 5 patches without any change.

> Also, why does *this* fix need to go to all kernels which contain the patch in
> Fixes?

Whenever another patch is being backported results in the same problem, it will
be mitigated by my fix.

> All this sounds weird.

TBH I'm quite puzzled that this build failure hasn't been seen before. As I said
above: pure luck.

Juergen

Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3684 bytes)

Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)