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:   Tue, 12 May 2020 11:35:40 +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

Hi Arnd,

On 08/05/2020 14:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:14 PM Grygorii Strashko
> <> wrote:
>> On 08/05/2020 13:10, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:59 AM Grygorii Strashko
>>>> 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.
> I have applied to patch locally to my randconfig tree, with the IS_REACHABLE()
> changes taken out.

What will be the conclusion here?

Best regards,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists