Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20
Hi Ard,
On 2019/2/20 18:05, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:58, Jarkko Sakkinen
> 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
>>>
>>> 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
> 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
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:58, Jarkko Sakkinen
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
> >
> > 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
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
>
> 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: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix crash in cper_estatus_check()
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 2:50:04 PM CET Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:00:49AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Boris, any comments here? > > For both: > > Acked-by: Borislav Petkov Both applied, thanks!
