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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 5F24AC43381 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3BD21871 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nifty.com header.i=@nifty.com header.b="gV2H0hK0" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729507AbfCOQOr (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:14:47 -0400 Received: from conssluserg-02.nifty.com ([210.131.2.81]:21222 "EHLO conssluserg-02.nifty.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726842AbfCOQOq (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:14:46 -0400 Received: from mail-ua1-f48.google.com (mail-ua1-f48.google.com [209.85.222.48]) (authenticated) by conssluserg-02.nifty.com with ESMTP id x2FGEVjw009417; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 01:14:32 +0900 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-02.nifty.com x2FGEVjw009417 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nifty.com; s=dec2015msa; t=1552666472; bh=lS3uNHzFMk91s+9sZ+0u7Ve+F3hHsuEVIbpCZU+hlLU=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=gV2H0hK0i360IvlSgmXHJXZYjimeX11C5PzxVU83ztSzFD7Cp6JULwu7LAD53Ra2L oPi66viGs+NNk8mP1ViAZIUJwYHTgN+0TkWrda9TFU6diSAx/EMvqWGLvF4ZPNpiHc ZpatB0lned0z0H7a3BOcW6LQUCi3jzSM1Qp/xFIBlJhSexHhhSQM/WnY7vveP/JN2p OGuQ8Pys9iLwZOrFLa72pgnha6v1VE3zd0th34JvogeJCPvBur/YmXLXgfcanHP2Tp hUbdTnbCDXFBtah/4BCl369O2D9GLUyRhZqPtHjduTzv5Z0xufLRKi/Rv3tGDehKFY b/EhsV5LbOgaA== X-Nifty-SrcIP: [209.85.222.48] Received: by mail-ua1-f48.google.com with SMTP id b8so1638264uaq.7; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:14:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVLnCsu8ecQ5SFiPZofMrTw9DJaAuGzjPbrByOxDh+8tjzvmooJ 18RBn3ZtNIDz8y+3HpOOAHTsifd9PKBaF5KI5Mc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwY9hzON0yx6fx3LGi6T+XYo3dnwkhQNYIqa6JXJMSKpAk6eyyH96lJLYnsSim0Z9NXa42OJEV6gTB9SI6WFL4= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:2b16:: with SMTP id e22mr89399uar.113.1552666471061; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:14:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190314175705.11671-1-dianders@chromium.org> In-Reply-To: From: Masahiro Yamada Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 01:13:55 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: If the module stripping command fails the build should abort To: Doug Anderson Cc: Michal Marek , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Kbuild mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi. On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 12:19 AM Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 7:11 AM Masahiro Yamada > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:59 AM Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > > > > If the call to strip returns an error code then it makes sense for the > > > build to fail. Currently we'll just chug along and ship unstripped > > > modules. > > > > > > Fixes: e2a666d52b48 ("kbuild: sign the modules at install time") > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson > > > > > > Did you see this problem in the latest kernel? > > > > Since commit q, > > $(call cmd,...) is run with 'set -e'. > > > > Any failure in a series of commands will let the build fail. > > > > > > If you have the problem in old versions ( < 4.20), > > Ah! I was in 4.19 when I saw the problem. I then confirmed that the > code in mainline was the same and that the new version built fine with > my patch, but I didn't go back and confirm the problem there. > > OK, I just checked linux/master and can confirm there's no problem > there. Sorry for the noise then... > > I wonder if perhaps we should revert commit caf6fe91ddf6 ("modsign: > Abort modules_install when signing fails") then to be consistent? Right. If you send a patch, I will take it. > > I do not mind this patch for linux-stable. > > It's probably not worth it. In general I prefer linux-stable to be as > just cherry-picks of mainline as much as possible. When it starts > forking then future picks get harder. Sure in this case it's unlikely > that someone will get tripped up by an "&&" vs a ";" when picking > future changes, but given that it's not super urgent I guess I'd vote > that we skip it. Agree. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada