From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4D89C2C8; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739159632; cv=none; b=KyLQC9enbQ5T+gHjpsbrRq9lv+46Qiw/sysq/cQZeIB5l6aPEyr933rnxlV2X3bx3nwJq7htE2IoD5kUxRAPxLLAN4umS4A/zU5zsVBBM6faZbaKEdtpyEpaPYk71af9lL6/4J3CvGgaJq/Q/GoApKYzM7f7b1U3oLkR8775WTs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739159632; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vom67kOHKiQuX8fnXwa0GURTiCPE8OBtrY6jq06pSx8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CdO5uJbPhK1aIgWQGCzEG4DcaahTw12UVipT/6+0r1fmWcG8SU+sC2Skm7L0H1NdHDvZhSo3UQIaM614lbLID9zskZrNne+v3L/rhRsBIdSIlkpEJpv6rcm2Iy3XGZx778aHCECmCYoTYZj8YdsxYtNkjGFipxy3Wer8slRyNDs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b=BGlI/Hcb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b="BGlI/Hcb" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=201702; t=1739159628; bh=aMvp0QFhdjAW7mg6EKEmRiSR9LwEqTvh2enm+qN5jtU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BGlI/HcbwcGjyWyHEmNYsDW+Ocof2vzjzPQU2cZp1q7lkJHLPsnxKLnRt+uzZZ4VP UWFW6bLhYX69WOcV5tRIBmAmdDV9adQDVH8ML1JoI6qjzaSmiivTkzTn05ntHrdwgO 3ex4ibOdnsxEi2Y7CxsYc0oEgFn7basEnfuVSy7sb+7toUzWVhM6Nf4LszR3ISGzT9 n3yZBqkhmGgUaq3YelInEsj9kBspX1ayKvDs70+30ytyQleUFkOUK/hhZweJQnoarR Sx1rihmBEkURhmkcNuDSSSPCWYhYxE12sfAhzHTgmWx1wjAX+bwaRTcqL5TCngxvil YNxVPl/rKFXHA== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4YrrKS6Bn4z4wby; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:53:48 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:53:48 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Paul Moore Cc: Hamza Mahfooz , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the security tree Message-ID: <20250210145348.59791103@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: References: <20250210121813.3e24cdaa@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/vS1sW4cJo2su/RIXY388RZK"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 --Sig_/vS1sW4cJo2su/RIXY388RZK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Paul, On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:44:42 -0500 Paul Moore wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 8:18=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > After merging the security tree, today's linux-next build (arm > > multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this: > > > > In file included from include/linux/perf_event.h:62, > > from arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:21: > > include/linux/security.h:2379:12: warning: no previous prototype for 's= ecurity_uring_allowed' [-Wmissing-prototypes] > > 2379 | extern int security_uring_allowed(void) > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =20 >=20 > Thanks Stephen, I just pushed a fix to the LSM tree, it should be > fixed on your next pull. >=20 > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20250210034132.8448-2-paul@= paul-moore.com/ Shouldn't it be "static inline" instead of "extern inline"? --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/vS1sW4cJo2su/RIXY388RZK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmepeEwACgkQAVBC80lX 0GxrLgf+JgtgFOPsoNv++HjaxBXhL1YJ2SftbWFblPSJNvZh3IOrfaTz+lFaNmwi XdkM0lYo+Ud5f0OiFy3uJNxqaMsKnOIJ3Czyrdx+QgchCEI8AiOs1S4ECkMH2etK S9SwKLDZmfTL1PPQEqLjIhjqBdGIfpP1TBwaM4g+e47ovBHMR+Up+Jy6eaFW03Dz kDmEKfJk9vkH7S7PUTJe6l3sWGDslOKHwuTVlDX1thiuDYU664BvW2pJZKI2F75n RYJj2kExavwoIQGNTQHFDcMWSL3KjOeCXsVo/JYwqjZrS2eEdm0f2GV2fqUrVG37 vdCjlaLdHs1ccTG0bA5UhsuRombD9g== =n09/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/vS1sW4cJo2su/RIXY388RZK--