On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 15:24, Jonathan McDowell <noodles@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:19:16PM -0700, ross.philipson@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On 8/28/24 10:14 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 19:09, kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Ross, > > > > > > > > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings: > > > > > > > > [auto build test WARNING on tip/x86/core] > > > > [also build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing char-misc/char-misc-next char-misc/char-misc-linus herbert-cryptodev-2.6/master efi/next linus/master v6.11-rc5] > > > > [cannot apply to herbert-crypto-2.6/master next-20240828] > > > > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. > > > > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch*_base_tree_information__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIxuz-LAC$ ] > > > > > > > > url: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Ross-Philipson/Documentation-x86-Secure-Launch-kernel-documentation/20240827-065225__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmI7Z6SQKy$ > > > > base: tip/x86/core > > > > patch link: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240826223835.3928819-21-ross.philipson*40oracle.com__;JQ!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIzWfs1XZ$ > > > > patch subject: [PATCH v10 20/20] x86/efi: EFI stub DRTM launch support for Secure Launch > > > > config: i386-randconfig-062-20240828 (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240829/202408290030.FEbUhHbr-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIwkYG0TY$ ) > > > > > > > > > This is a i386 32-bit build, which makes no sense: this stuff should > > > just declare 'depends on 64BIT' > > > > Our config entry already has 'depends on X86_64' which in turn depends on > > 64BIT. I would think that would be enough. Do you think it needs an explicit > > 'depends on 64BIT' in our entry as well? > > The error is in x86-stub.c, which is pre-existing and compiled for 32 > bit as well, so you need more than a "depends" here. > Ugh, that means this is my fault - apologies. Replacing the #ifdef with IS_ENABLED() makes the code visible to the 32-bit compiler, even though the code is disregarded. I'd still prefer IS_ENABLED(), but this would require the code in question to live in a separate compilation unit (which depends on CONFIG_SECURE_LAUNCH). If that is too fiddly, feel free to bring back the #ifdef CONFIG_SECURE_LAUNCH here (and retain my R-b)
