From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088B3C433DF for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:23:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC33022BF5 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:23:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726806AbgG3DXD (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:23:03 -0400 Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:39170 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726774AbgG3DXD (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:23:03 -0400 Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 06U3MoIj007800; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 05:22:50 +0200 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 05:22:50 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Kees Cook Cc: Linus Torvalds , Stephen Rothwell , Emese Revfy , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Sami Tolvanen Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the origin tree Message-ID: <20200730032250.GB7790@1wt.eu> References: <20200730090828.2349e159@canb.auug.org.au> <202007292007.D87DBD34B@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202007292007.D87DBD34B@keescook> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org Hi Kees, On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 08:17:48PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > And just another heads-up, the patch[1] (which was never sent to a public > list) also breaks arm64 (circular header needs?): (...) Definitely, we've just got a report about this, I'll have a look once I'm at the office. I'd like to check that we don't obviously break another arch by just removing percpu. If at least shuffling them around is sufficient that'd be nice. Otherwise we'll likely need a separate header (which is not a bad thing for the long term). Thanks! Willy