Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

Kees Cook
2017-06-15T23:46:35Z

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:56:30 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> >> Caused by commit
>> >>
>> >> 088a5ecf7581 ("include/linux/string.h: add the option of fortified string.h functions")
>> >>
>> >> We really need to fix all the known problems it detects *before*
>> >> merging this commit ...
>> >>
>> >> I have reverted it for today.
>> >
>> > I am still needing to revert this every day ...
>>
>> I sent a series for -mm (or maintainers) to merge that should catch
>> everything. Do you want me to carry it in my kspp tree instead? (My
>> original intention was to carry all the fixes and the fortify patch in
>> kspp but akpm took it into -mm somewhat unexpectedly, not that I'm
>> complaining.)
>
> This is all getting a bit foggy in my mind. Can we please have a full
> resend of everything? Sufficient to hopefully produce a tree which has
> no build-time or run-time regressions? Including the buildbot's
> recently-reported alpha and xtensa issues?

It's been sent a few times (and a few fixes have been collected in
other trees already). What I've got in my for-next/kspp tree right now
is all the fixes that haven't already been picked up by other tree
maintainers, and I added the fortify patch itself to the end of the
tree too now since sfr asked for that a few hours ago.

Merged with latest -next, this passes x86_64, i386, arm64, and powerpc
allmodconfig builds for me. It doesn't pass arm, though. Perhaps we
need to add an ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE to gate the all*config builds?

Should we let the dust settle first? I'm happy to do whatever makes
the most sense, I'm just following what (I understand) sfr suggested
most recently. :)

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security