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  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]
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 14:14:21 +0300
From:   Grygorii Strashko <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
CC:     Networking <>,
        Tony Lindgren <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Russell King <>,
        "" <>,
        linux-omap <>,
        Richard Cochran <>,
        Clay McClure <>, Dan Murphy <>,
        Murali Karicheri <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: ethernet: ti: fix build and remove
 TI_CPTS_MOD workaround

On 08/05/2020 13:10, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:59 AM Grygorii Strashko
> <> wrote:
>> From: Clay McClure <>
>> My recent commit b6d49cab44b5 ("net: Make PTP-specific drivers depend on
>> PTP_1588_CLOCK") exposes a missing dependency in defconfigs that select
>> TI_CPTS without selecting PTP_1588_CLOCK, leading to linker errors of the
>> form:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.o: in function `cpsw_ndo_stop':
>> cpsw.c:(.text+0x680): undefined reference to `cpts_unregister'
>>   ...
>> That's because TI_CPTS_MOD (which is the symbol gating the _compilation_ of
>> cpts.c) now depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK, and so is not enabled in these
>> configurations, but TI_CPTS (which is the symbol gating _calls_ to the cpts
>> functions) _is_ enabled. So we end up compiling calls to functions that
>> don't exist, resulting in the linker errors.
>> This patch fixes build errors and restores previous behavior by:
>>   - ensure PTP_1588_CLOCK=y in TI specific configs and CPTS will be built
>>   - use IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_TI_CPTS) in code instead of IS_ENABLED()
> I don't understand what IS_REACHABLE() is needed for once all the other
> changes are in place. I'd hope we can avoid that. Do you still see
> failures without
> that or is it just a precaution. I can do some randconfig testing on your patch
> to see what else might be needed to avoid IS_REACHABLE().

I've not changed this part of original patch, but seems you're right.

I can drop it and resend, but, unfortunately, i do not have time today for full build testing.

By the way in ptp_clock_kernel.h

Best regards,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists