Hi.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 12:19 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 7:11 AM Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:59 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > If the call to strip returns an error code then it makes sense for the
> > > build to fail. Currently we'll just chug along and ship unstripped
> > > modules.
> > >
> > > Fixes: e2a666d52b48 ("kbuild: sign the modules at install time")
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > Did you see this problem in the latest kernel?
> >
> > Since commit q,
> > $(call cmd,...) is run with 'set -e'.
> >
> > Any failure in a series of commands will let the build fail.
> >
> >
> > If you have the problem in old versions ( < 4.20),
>
> Ah! I was in 4.19 when I saw the problem. I then confirmed that the
> code in mainline was the same and that the new version built fine with
> my patch, but I didn't go back and confirm the problem there.
>
> OK, I just checked linux/master and can confirm there's no problem
> there. Sorry for the noise then...
>
> I wonder if perhaps we should revert commit caf6fe91ddf6 ("modsign:
> Abort modules_install when signing fails") then to be consistent?
Right.
If you send a patch, I will take it.
> > I do not mind this patch for linux-stable.
>
> It's probably not worth it. In general I prefer linux-stable to be as
> just cherry-picks of mainline as much as possible. When it starts
> forking then future picks get harder. Sure in this case it's unlikely
> that someone will get tripped up by an "&&" vs a ";" when picking
> future changes, but given that it's not super urgent I guess I'd vote
> that we skip it.
Agree.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
