RE: [PATCH] audit: Fix build failure by renaming struct node to struct audit_node

-----Message d'origine----- De : Paul Moore <paul(a)paul-moore.com&gt; On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 2:41 AM LEROY Christophe <christophe.leroy(a)csgroup.eu&gt; wrote: > Le 03/09/2021 à 19:06, Paul Moore a écrit : > > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 11:48 AM Christophe Leroy > > <christophe.leroy(a)csgroup.eu&gt; wrote: > >> > >> struct node defined in kernel/audit_tree.c conflicts with struct > >> node defined in include/linux/node.h > >> > >> CC kernel/audit_tree.o > >> kernel/audit_tree.c:33:9: error: redefinition of 'struct node' > >> 33 | struct node { > >> | ^~~~ > >> In file included from ./include/linux/cpu.h:17, > >> from ./include/linux/static_call.h:102, > >> from ./arch/powerpc/include/asm/machdep.h:10, > >> from ./arch/powerpc/include/asm/archrandom.h:7, > >> from ./include/linux/random.h:121, > >> from ./include/linux/net.h:18, > >> from ./include/linux/skbuff.h:26, > >> from kernel/audit.h:11, > >> from kernel/audit_tree.c:2: > >> ./include/linux/node.h:84:8: note: originally defined here > >> 84 | struct node { > >> | ^~~~ > >> make[2]: *** [kernel/audit_tree.o] Error 1 > >> > >> Rename it audit_node. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy(a)csgroup.eu&gt; > >> --- > >> kernel/audit_tree.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > That's interesting, I wonder why we didn't see this prior? Also as > > an aside, there are evidently a good handful of symbols named > > "node". In fact I don't see this now in the audit/stable-5.15 or > > Linus' tree as of a right now, both using an allyesconfig: > > > > % git show-ref HEAD > > a9c9a6f741cdaa2fa9ba24a790db8d07295761e3 refs/remotes/linus/HEAD % > > touch kernel/audit_tree.c % make C=1 kernel/ > > CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh > > CALL scripts/atomic/check-atomics.sh > > DESCEND objtool > > CHK kernel/kheaders_data.tar.xz > > CC kernel/audit_tree.o > > CHECK kernel/audit_tree.c > > AR kernel/built-in.a > > > > What tree and config are you using where you see this error? > > Looking at your error, I'm guessing this is limited to ppc builds, > > and if I look at the arch/powerpc/include/asm/machdep.h file in > > Linus tree I don't see a static_call.h include so I'm guessing this > > is a -next tree for ppc? Something else? > > > > Without knowing the context, is adding the static_call.h include in > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/machdep.h intentional or simply a bit of > > include file creep? > > struct machdep_calls in asm/machdep.h is full of function pointers and > I'm working on converting that to static_calls > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=260878 > &state=*) > > So yes, adding static_call.h in asm/machdep.h is intentional and the > issue was detected by CI build test > (http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/14628100/) > > I submitted this change to you because for me it make sense to not > re-use globably defined struct names in local C files, and anybody may > encounter the problem as soon as linux/node.h gets included directly > or indirectly. But if you prefer I guess the fix may be merged through > powerpc tree as part of this series. Yes, this patch should go in via the audit tree, and while I don't have an objection to the patch, whenever I see a patch to fix an issue that is not visible in Linus' tree or the audit tree it raises some questions. I usually hope to see those questions answered proactively in the cover letter and/or patch description but that wasn't the case here so you get to play a game of 20 questions. Speaking of which, I don't recall seeing an answer to the "where do these include file changes live?" question, is is the ppc -next tree, or are they still unmerged and just on the ppc list?