On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 06:37:03PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:52 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:47:00AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:09 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:02:29AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:40 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:43:09AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:29 AM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 09:59:47PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 5:00 PM Nathan Chancellor > > > > > > > > ><natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> After a glibc update to 2.29, my 4.14 builds started failing like so: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> HOSTCC scripts/selinux/genheaders/genheaders > > > > > > > > >> In file included from scripts/selinux/genheaders/genheaders.c:19: > > > > > > > > >> ./security/selinux/include/classmap.h:245:2: error: #error New address family defined, please update secclass_map. > > > > > > > > >> #error New address family defined, please update secclass_map. > > > > > > > > >> ^~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >This is a known problem that has a fix in the selinux/next branch and > > > > > > > > >will be going up to Linus during the next merge window. The fix is > > > > > > > > >quite small and should be relatively easy for you to backport to your > > > > > > > > >kernel build if you are interested; the patch can be found at the > > > > > > > > >archive link below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >https://lore.kernel.org/selinux/20190225005528.28371-1-paulo@xxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is it waiting for the next merge window? It fixes a build bug that > > > > > > > > people hit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I place a reasonably high bar on patches that I send up to Linus > > > > > > > outside of the merge window and I didn't feel this patch met that > > > > > > > criteria. Nathan is only the second person I've seen who has > > > > > > > encountered this problem, the first being the original patch author. > > > > > > > As far as I've seen, the problem is only seen by users building older > > > > > > > kernels on very new userspaces (e.g. glibc v2.29 was released in > > > > > > > February 2019, Linux v4.14 was released in 2017); this doesn't appear > > > > > > > to be a large group of people and I didn't want to risk breaking the > > > > > > > main kernel tree during the -rcX phase for such a small group. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ugh, this breaks my local builds, I would recommend getting it to Linus > > > > > > sooner please. > > > > > > > > > > Well, we are at -rc7 right now and it looks like an -rc8 is unlikely > > > > > so the question really comes down to can/do you want to wait a week? > > > > > > > > It's a regression in the 5.1-rc tree, that is hitting people now. Why > > > > do you want to have a 5.1-final that is known to be broken? > > > > > > I believe I answered that in my reply to Sasha. Can you answer the > > > question I asked of you above? > > > > If you don't submit it this week, I guess I can wait as I have no other > > choice. > > > > But note, this did break my build systems, and my main development > > system this weekend. So yes, the number of people being affected might > > be "small", but that "small" number includes the people responsible for > > maintaining those stable kernels :( > > > > Anyway, it's your call, just letting you know I'm really annoyed at the > > moment by this... > > It's against my better judgement, but I'll send a PR up to Linus now. Thank you for doing so, greg k-h
