From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Micay Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 09:34:31 -0400 Message-ID: <1496669671.343.5.camel@gmail.com> References: <20170605170117.6a1fc15e@canb.auug.org.au> <1496667976.343.3.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1496667976.343.3.camel@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kees Cook List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org > It also probably finds more architecture-specific issues and may need > compatibility fixes for them. I could mark it as compatible with only > arm64 and x86(_64) since they're what I've tested to build and work at > runtime and the compile-time errors could be turned into warnings for > now, if it's mandatory that FORTIFY_SOURCE=y doesn't find problems at > compile-time anywhere. If it's a warning, it will still catch the > issue > at runtime like the rest where the size isn't a constant. I'm already leaving out intra-object overflow checks and the alloc_size attributes in this initial submission to make it easier to land so scaling it back a bit more (errors -> warnings, gating on archs) isn't a problem if it's needed to get started.