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

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&...) 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.