netdev - Re: build #337 failed for 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac In function `usbnet_set

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: <20071108080803.a2b1201d.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:08:03 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: build #337 failed for 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac In function
 `usbnet_set_settings':

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 04:30:10 +0100 Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:52:32PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 02:34:52PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > > > > But on the other hand, it seems that only the ASIX code will work
> > > > > right; the DM9601 and MCS7830 Kconfig is different/wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not seeing the problem.
> > > > 
> > > > Which configuration will be handled wrongly?
> > > 
> > > Notice how only the ASIX kconfig depended on NET_ETHERNET...
> > > since MII depends on NET_ETHERNET, and (last I knew) the
> > > reverse dependencies didn't capture the complete dependency
> > > tree, selecting only MII would leave out some stuff.
> > 
> > Except for one s390 net driver (I'll check why it's doing this) the 
> > NET_ETHERNET option does not influence what code is being generated - 
> > it's just a Kconfig-internal option allowing to disable a huge bunch
> > of drivers at once.
> 
> Damn, I shouldn't have only grep'ed under drivers/.
> 
> @davem:
> 
> Please look at net/ipv4/arp.c:arp_process()
> 
> Am I right that CONFIG_NET_ETHERNET=n and CONFIG_NETDEV_1000=y or 
> CONFIG_NETDEV_10000=y will not be handled correctly there?

I'd say yes, you are correct.

> And the best solution is to nuke all #ifdef's in this function and make 
> the code unconditionally available?



---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html