On 7/10/23 14:27, Eric DeVolder wrote: > > > On 7/10/23 15:23, Eric DeVolder wrote: >> >> >> On 7/10/23 15:11, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/9/23 18:38, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Changes since 20230707: >>>> >>> >>> on s390: >>> >>> ../arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c: In function 's390_verify_sig': >>> ../arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c:69:15: error: implicit declaration of function 'verify_pkcs7_signature' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>> 69 | ret = verify_pkcs7_signature(kernel, kernel_len, >>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors >>> >>> >>> Full randconfig file is attached. >>> >> >> Randy, >> Thanks for this. This appears to be randconfig testing against linux-next. >> As of right now, linux-next does not contain the v5 that I posted friday. >> The v5 posted friday was picked up by Andrew and over the weekend no fails >> discovered, and the series currently sits in mm-everything branch. So hopefully >> it will appear soon in linux-next! >> >> Let me know if I misunderstand the situation. >> Thanks! >> eric > > Well the root cause is a missing SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION. This was discussed > through MODULE_SIG_FORMAT thread. I don't think v5 changed anything with > respect to this issue, so it will likely reveal itself again. > > Since it was agreed to drop MODULE_SIG_FORMAT, and my attempt to select > SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION results in same circular dependency as with > MODULE_SIG_FORMAT, I'm unsure how to proceed. > > The arch/s390/Kconfig S390 option has a 'select KEXEC' (but not KEXEC_FILE), > maybe we consider adding a 'select SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION' as well? Sure, since some other configs select it also. And as long as it doesn't cause a circular dependency problem. thanks. -- ~Randy
