From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751989AbdFPAFS (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:05:18 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f52.google.com ([209.85.214.52]:37325 "EHLO mail-it0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751879AbdFPAFQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:05:16 -0400 Message-ID: <1497571513.17727.2.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree From: Daniel Micay To: Kees Cook , Andrew Morton Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:05:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20170605170117.6a1fc15e@canb.auug.org.au> <20170615113548.3e4edcf4@canb.auug.org.au> <20170615121220.4331a37b0fb736ec9da4e423@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:46 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Andrew Morton > wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:56:30 -0700 Kees Cook > > wrote: > > > > > > > Caused by commit > > > > > > > > > > 088a5ecf7581 ("include/linux/string.h: add the option of > > > > > fortified string.h functions") > > > > > > > > > > We really need to fix all the known problems it detects > > > > > *before* > > > > > merging this commit ... > > > > > > > > > > I have reverted it for today. > > > > > > > > I am still needing to revert this every day ... > > > > > > I sent a series for -mm (or maintainers) to merge that should > > > catch > > > everything. Do you want me to carry it in my kspp tree instead? > > > (My > > > original intention was to carry all the fixes and the fortify > > > patch in > > > kspp but akpm took it into -mm somewhat unexpectedly, not that I'm > > > complaining.) > > > > This is all getting a bit foggy in my mind. Can we please have a > > full > > resend of everything? Sufficient to hopefully produce a tree which > > has > > no build-time or run-time regressions? Including the buildbot's > > recently-reported alpha and xtensa issues? > > It's been sent a few times (and a few fixes have been collected in > other trees already). What I've got in my for-next/kspp tree right now > is all the fixes that haven't already been picked up by other tree > maintainers, and I added the fortify patch itself to the end of the > tree too now since sfr asked for that a few hours ago. > > Merged with latest -next, this passes x86_64, i386, arm64, and powerpc > allmodconfig builds for me. It doesn't pass arm, though. Perhaps we > need to add an ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE to gate the all*config builds? > > Should we let the dust settle first? I'm happy to do whatever makes > the most sense, I'm just following what (I understand) sfr suggested > most recently. :) > > -Kees > If it needs to build and boot on every architecture, I think we should gate it on i386, x86_64, arm64 or powerpc where it has been tested. I think I know what has to be fixed for alpha and xtensa but there might be more problems. It's better to wait for someone willing / able to do it properly by building it themselves and doing basic runtime testing.