[PATCH 6.1 5.15 5.10 5.4 4.19 4.14] selftests/memfd: Fix unknown type name build failure
Partially backport v6.3 commit 11f75a01448f ("selftests/memfd: add tests for MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL MFD_EXEC") to fix an unknown type name build error. In some systems, the __u64 typedef is not present due to differences in system headers, causing compilation errors like this one:
fuse_test.c:64:8: error: unknown type name '__u64' 64 | static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
This header includes the __u64 typedef which increases the likelihood of successful compilation on a wider variety of systems.
Signed-off-by: Hardik Garg hargar@linux.microsoft.com --- tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c index be675002f918..93798c8c5d54 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ #include <linux/falloc.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <linux/memfd.h> +#include <linux/types.h> #include <sched.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h>
Hi,
Thanks for your patch.
FYI: kernel test robot notices the stable kernel rule is not satisfied.
Rule: 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' or 'commit <sha1> upstream.' Subject: [PATCH 6.1 5.15 5.10 5.4 4.19 4.14] selftests/memfd: Fix unknown type name build failure Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20230526232136.255244-1-hargar%40linux.micros...
The check is based on https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
Please ignore this mail if the patch is not relevant for upstream.
On 2023-05-27 07:23:22, kernel test robot wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your patch.
FYI: kernel test robot notices the stable kernel rule is not satisfied.
Rule: 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' or 'commit <sha1> upstream.' Subject: [PATCH 6.1 5.15 5.10 5.4 4.19 4.14] selftests/memfd: Fix unknown type name build failure Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20230526232136.255244-1-hargar%40linux.micros...
The check is based on https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
Please ignore this mail if the patch is not relevant for upstream.
I think Hardik did the right thing here. This is a build failure bug that's present in stable kernels but was fixed in upstream by an unrelated commit:
11f75a01448f ("selftests/memfd: add tests for MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL MFD_EXEC")
It wouldn't be right to backport that patch because MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC weren't introduced until v6.3.
There was an (unmerged) attempt to fix this specific build failure in upstream:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211203024706.10094-1-luke.nowakowskikrijger@ca...
Hardik opted to follow what was done upstream in a patch specifically for the stable tree.
Tyler
-- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 08:20:03PM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
On 2023-05-27 07:23:22, kernel test robot wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your patch.
FYI: kernel test robot notices the stable kernel rule is not satisfied.
Rule: 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' or 'commit <sha1> upstream.' Subject: [PATCH 6.1 5.15 5.10 5.4 4.19 4.14] selftests/memfd: Fix unknown type name build failure Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20230526232136.255244-1-hargar%40linux.micros...
The check is based on https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
Please ignore this mail if the patch is not relevant for upstream.
I think Hardik did the right thing here. This is a build failure bug that's present in stable kernels but was fixed in upstream by an unrelated commit:
11f75a01448f ("selftests/memfd: add tests for MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL MFD_EXEC")
It wouldn't be right to backport that patch because MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC weren't introduced until v6.3.
There was an (unmerged) attempt to fix this specific build failure in upstream:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211203024706.10094-1-luke.nowakowskikrijger@ca...
Hardik opted to follow what was done upstream in a patch specifically for the stable tree.
Yes, this is the right thing to do, you can ignore the bot :)
On 2023-05-26 16:21:36, Hardik Garg wrote:
Partially backport v6.3 commit 11f75a01448f ("selftests/memfd: add tests for MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL MFD_EXEC") to fix an unknown type name build error. In some systems, the __u64 typedef is not present due to differences in system headers, causing compilation errors like this one:
fuse_test.c:64:8: error: unknown type name '__u64' 64 | static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
This header includes the __u64 typedef which increases the likelihood of successful compilation on a wider variety of systems.
Signed-off-by: Hardik Garg hargar@linux.microsoft.com
Reviewed-by: Tyler Hicks (Microsoft) code@tyhicks.com
Tyler
tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c index be675002f918..93798c8c5d54 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ #include <linux/falloc.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <linux/memfd.h> +#include <linux/types.h> #include <sched.h> #include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
2.25.1
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 04:21:36PM -0700, Hardik Garg wrote:
Partially backport v6.3 commit 11f75a01448f ("selftests/memfd: add tests for MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL MFD_EXEC") to fix an unknown type name build error. In some systems, the __u64 typedef is not present due to differences in system headers, causing compilation errors like this one:
fuse_test.c:64:8: error: unknown type name '__u64' 64 | static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
This header includes the __u64 typedef which increases the likelihood of successful compilation on a wider variety of systems.
Signed-off-by: Hardik Garg hargar@linux.microsoft.com
tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Now queued up, thanks.
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg KH -
Hardik Garg -
kernel test robot -
Tyler Hicks