[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260119081917-f47ff5da-4465-4b3e-8c94-42b96c932583@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 08:20:44 +0100
From: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
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>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Sun Jian <sun.jian.kdev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/vdso: Use 32-bit CHECKFLAGS for compat vDSO
On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 11:05:05PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16 2026 at 08:40, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Manually override the CHECKFLAGS for the compat vDSO with the correct
> > 32-bit configuration.
>
> Fun. I just fixed the same thing half an hour ago:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260117215542.342638347@kernel.org/
Assuming you are going to apply your patches bevore, can I respin my
remaining patches on top of tip/x86/entry?
> > Reported-by: Sun Jian <sun.jian.kdev@...il.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260114084529.1676356-1-sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/entry/vdso/Makefile | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/Makefile b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/Makefile
> > index f247f5f5cb44..ab571ad9b9ac 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/Makefile
> > @@ -142,7 +142,10 @@ ifneq ($(RETPOLINE_VDSO_CFLAGS),)
> > endif
> > endif
> >
> > +CHECKFLAGS_32 := $(CHECKFLAGS) -U__x86_64__ -D__i386__ -m32
>
> Hmm. That keeps -m64. Seems not to matter much, but substituting both
> seems to be more correct.
Fair enough.
Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists