Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi Shaokun,

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:45 AM Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> On 2019/2/20 18:05, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:58, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:52:52AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 05:11:15PM +0800, Zhangshaokun wrote:
> >>>> There is a compiler failure on arm64 platform, as follow:
> >>>>
> >>>>   AS      arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.o
> >>>>   CC      kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
> >>>> In file included from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:0:
> >>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:176:7: error: redeclaration of enumerator ‘NONE’
> >>>>   hook(NONE)   \
> >>>>        ^
> >>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:188:34: note: in definition of macro ‘__ima_hook_enumify’
> >>>>  #define __ima_hook_enumify(ENUM) ENUM,
> >>>>                                   ^
> >>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:191:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘__ima_hooks’
> >>>>   __ima_hooks(__ima_hook_enumify)
> >>>>   ^
> >>>> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h:15:0,
> >>>>                  from ./include/acpi/acpi_io.h:7,
> >>>>                  from ./include/linux/acpi.h:47,
> >>>>                  from ./include/linux/tpm.h:26,
> >>>>                  from security/integrity/ima/ima.h:25,
> >>>>                  from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:
> >>>> ./include/linux/efi.h:1716:2: note: previous definition of ‘NONE’ was here
> >>>>   NONE,
> >>>>   ^
> >>>> scripts/Makefile.build:276: recipe for target 'security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o' failed
> >>>> make[3]: *** [security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o] Error 1
> >>>>
> >>>> I dug it and it is the commit 901615cb916d ("tpm: move tpm_chip definition to include/linux/tpm.h")
> >>>
> >>> This results from a new include in tpm.h:
> >>>
> >>>   #include <linux/acpi.h>
> >>>
> >>> Must be fixed either in include/linux/efi.h or security/integrity/ima.h as
> >>> those files have a name collision. Makes me wonder why neither has taken
> >>> care of prefixing the constants properly.
> >>
> >> Preferably both subsystems should be fixed with proper 'EFI_' and 'IMA_'
> >> prefixes. Defining a constant named as NONE in a non-generic subsystem
> >> (e.g. not part of the core data structures of Linux) and especially
> >> exporting it to include/linux is not too well considered act.
> >>
> >
> > Fixes for this have already been proposed, and should appear in -next shortly
> >
> > The EFI one is here
> > https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/linux-efi/FMfcgxwBVgrQRjglPkWRqRqVclGgVDnB
> >
>
> Because of no privilege, the website is denied for me. Anyway, it's nice to have been fixed.

Looks like Ard posted a link to a label in his personal gmail mailbox?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds