Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19

[Guenter Roeck]

On 09/20/2014 12:36 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
> Hi Günter,
>
> On 09/19/2014 09:15 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:58:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Changes since 20140917:
> > >
> > > The fsl tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> > > next-20140917.
> > >
> > > The v4l-dvb tree lost its build failure.
> > >
> > > The security tree gained a conflict against the file-locks tree.
> > >
> > > Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 6014
> > >   5488 files changed, 217522 insertions(+), 129375 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > parisc:defconfig, parisc:generic-32bit_defconfig:
> >
> > --------------
> > Error log:
> > arch/parisc/kernel/ptrace.c: In function 'do_syscall_trace_enter':
> > arch/parisc/kernel/ptrace.c:274:2: error: implicit declaration of function
> > 'secure_computing' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > make[1]: *** [arch/parisc/kernel/ptrace.o] Error 1
> >
> > Bisect points to commit 273299fb6380 ('Merge branch 'x86/seccomp') which
> > obviously doesn't help much. Suspected culprit is c90f06943e05 ('parisc: Wire up
> > seccomp, getrandom and memfd_create syscalls') which seems to be missing an
> > include file.
>
> I could not reproduce this error with current git head.
With next-20140919 ?

> Nevertheless, it probably makes sense to #include <linux/seccomp.h> in ptrace.c to
> avoid a dependency on other header files to include it instead.
> I've added this patch to my for-next tree:
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/deller/parisc-linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=0f18557b017b3469e1f8edf5cf34c1cba856fdbe
>
> Could you try again?

That doesn't solve the problem for me, most likely because
HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER is not set for parisc in next-20140919.
This is what seccomp.h does with it:

#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
static inline int secure_computing(void) { return 0; }
#else
static inline void secure_computing_strict(int this_syscall) { return; }
#endif

You don't have this flag in your tree. It was introduced in -next with
commit 'seccomp,x86,arm,mips,s390: Remove nr parameter from secure_computing'.

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/