From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kees Cook Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the security tree Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 20:24:24 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20170817125140.7d705af8@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from mail-it0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:33831 "EHLO mail-it0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751622AbdHQDY0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 23:24:26 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f44.google.com with SMTP id m34so787475iti.1 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 20:24:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170817125140.7d705af8@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: James Morris , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi James, > > After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 > allmodconfig) failed like this: > > In file included from samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c:12:0: > samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c: In function 'main': > samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h:47:26: error: 'SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD' undeclared (first use in this function) > BPF_STMT(BPF_RET+BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD) > ^ > ./usr/include/linux/filter.h:48:59: note: in definition of macro 'BPF_STMT' > #define BPF_STMT(code, k) { (unsigned short)(code), 0, 0, k } > ^ > samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c:41:3: note: in expansion of macro 'DENY' > DENY, /* Don't passthrough into a label */ > ^~~~ > samples/seccomp/bpf-helper.h:47:26: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in > BPF_STMT(BPF_RET+BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD) > ^ > ./usr/include/linux/filter.h:48:59: note: in definition of macro 'BPF_STMT' > #define BPF_STMT(code, k) { (unsigned short)(code), 0, 0, k } > ^ > samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c:41:3: note: in expansion of macro 'DENY' > DENY, /* Don't passthrough into a label */ > ^~~~ > > [Note: this is a cross build, if that is relevant ...] > > Presumably caused by commit > > fd76875ca289 ("seccomp: Rename SECCOMP_RET_KILL to SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD") > > I have used the security tree from next-20170816 for today. Hmmm, I think we've had problems like this before due to samples being built before the headers have been installed. Regardless, I'll un-rename that macro in the samples... -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security