Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

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.

/Jarkko

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Ard Biesheuvel]

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

Not sure about the IMA one, Mimi should be able to comment ...

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Mimi Zohar]

> 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
> 
> Not sure about the IMA one, Mimi should be able to comment ...
    
I've already commented on the other patch and was expecting to see a
revised patch.

Mimi

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Zhangshaokun]

Hi Ard,

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.

Thanks,
Shaokun

> Not sure about the IMA one, Mimi should be able to comment ...
> 
> .
> 

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

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

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Zhangshaokun]

Hi Geert,

On 2019/2/21 16:03, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 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?
> 

Hmm, it seems that, my bad understanding.

Thanks your reply.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 

Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:04, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

Silly me.

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=efi/core&id=5c418dc789a3898717ebf2caa5716ba91a7150b2