Le 06/03/2026 à 14:08, Thomas Weißschuh a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 11:43:24AM +0100, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote:
Le 02/03/2026 à 08:58, Thomas Weißschuh a écrit :
When building the compat vDSO the CHECKFLAGS from the 64-bit kernel
are used. These are combined with the 32-bit CFLAGS. This confuses
sparse, producing false-positive warnings or potentially missing
real issues.
Manually override the CHECKFLAGS for the compat vDSO with the correct
32-bit configuration.
Not all architectures are supported, as many do not use sparse for their
(compat) vDSO. These can be enabled later.
Also add some checks to bitsperlong.h to detect such issues earlier.
Based on tip/timers/vdso.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
- Simplify __BITS_PER_LONG consistency checks
- Fix an inconsistency in the powerpc audit code
The powerpc audit code should be replaced by generic
AUDIT_ARCH_COMPAT_GENERIC, as there is no difference between them
apparently.
Agreed.
A tentative was made in the past but was declined by audit maintainers
because we were not able to test it allthought the failure was the same
before and after the patch, see
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flinuxppc%2Fissues%2Fissues%2F412&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cca6c85b42bd44c6a80c608de7b81819d%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639083993321723266%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VxTy22klpH9H8Altgcthr%2F%2ByUIL6q%2FbBkDV7FQS%2BljI%3D&reserved=0
On v7.0-rc1 the test failure of filter_exclude/test is gone.
It also keeps working when applying your patch. Some other tests are
broken, but it looks that is due to missing dependencies on Debian.
So maybe it is time to resubmit your patch.
In any case, I don't really want to entangle my series with the switch
to AUDIT_ARCH_COMPAT_GENERIC. My proposed cleanup does not make the code
worse and if both patches are applied the conflict will be trivial to
resolve.
I didn't mean to interfere with your patch, it is just that your patch
reminded me that tentative.
Thanks for testing, I will consider re-posting my patch based on your test.
Christophe
