Re: [PATCH] arm64: audit: Fix build for audit changes

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:33:38PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:22:24PM +0100, Eric Paris wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 10:09 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:26:42PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > From: Mark Brown <broonie(a)linaro.org&gt; > > > > > > > > Commit 3efe33f5d2 (audit: x86: drop arch from __audit_syscall_entry() > > > > interface) removed the arch parameter from __audit_syscall_entry() and > > > > updated the only current user in mainline but this breaks the ARMv8 audit > > > > code that has been added in -next. Fix this by making the equivalent > > > > update to ARMv8. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie(a)linaro.org&gt; > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 4 ++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > > > > index 70526cfda056..310842e3d477 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > > > > @@ -1115,8 +1115,8 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) > > > > if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT)) > > > > trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno); > > > > > > > > - audit_syscall_entry(syscall_get_arch(), regs->syscallno, > > > > - regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); > > > > + audit_syscall_entry(regs->syscallno, regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], > > > > + regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); > > > > > > Eric, Richard: when is 3efe33f5d2 ("audit: x86: drop arch from > > > __audit_syscall_entry() interface") going to hit mainline? I've been holding > > > off this fix until the offending commit is merged, but if that's not going > > > to happen for 3.17, then we probably need to do something else to fix -next. > > > > I think I'm being lazy this window and not oging to send a pull. So > > I'll pick up this fix as soon as rc1 cuts in my tree. > > Oh, alright then. If you're not going to send the code for mainline, you > could also just drop it from -next ;) > > Anyway, if you do fix it, please let me know so that I can remove our #ifdef > CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL guards (which only exist to stop build breakage in -next > with defconfig). Actually, Eric could carry the arm64 change from Mark into -next as well and we can drop the arm64 #ifdef before the API change hits mainline.