-----Message d'origine-----
De : Paul Moore <paul(a)paul-moore.com>
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 2:41 AM LEROY Christophe
<christophe.leroy(a)csgroup.eu> 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> 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>
> >> ---
> >> 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?
It is still an RFC in the ppc list.
Thanks
Christophe
CS Group - Document Interne