On 6/24/20 3:23 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 6/24/20 3:01 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:29 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/24/20 1:36 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 09:23:25AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >>>>>>>> Regardless, it seems arch/x86/um/asm/desc.h is not needed any more? >>>>>> >>>>>>> True that, we can rip the file. >>>>>> >>>>>> Has anyone fixed the uml build errors? >>>>> >>>>> I didn't realize that this is a super urgent issue. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Kees, if you want you can carry a patch in your series, I'll ack it. >>>>> Otherwise I can also do a patch and bring it via the uml tree upstream >>>>> as soon more fixes queued up. >>>> >>>> I think the lkdtm change will tweak this bug, so I'm happy to carry the >>>> patch (I just haven't had time to create and test one). Is it really >>>> just as simple as removing arch/x86/um/asm/desc.h? >>>> >>> >>> I just tried that and the build is still failing, so No, it's not that simple. >>> >>> But thanks for offering. >>> >>> I'll just ignore the UML build errors for now. >> >> This is a allyesconfig? >> I just gave CONFIG_LKDTM=y a try, builds fine here. >> > > I'm building linux-next and it fails. More specifically, uml for i386 fails. x86_64 is OK. The problem is with the <asm/desc.h> file. I'm tampering with it... >> But the desc.h in uml is still in vain and can be deleted AFAICT. -- ~Randy
