On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:07 PM, <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > Subject: + makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch added to -mm tree > To: > jbeul...@suse.com,jbeul...@suse.com,keesc...@chromium.org,mi...@kernel.org,mma...@suse.cz > From: a...@linux-foundation.org > Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:07:52 -0800 > > > The patch titled > Subject: Makefile: fix build with make 3.80 again > has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is > makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch > > This patch should soon appear at > > http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch > and later at > > http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch > > Before you just go and hit "reply", please: > a) Consider who else should be cc'ed > b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well > c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a > reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's > > *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** > > The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated > there every 3-4 working days > > ------------------------------------------------------ > From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> > Subject: Makefile: fix build with make 3.80 again > > According to Documentation/Changes, make 3.80 is still being supported for > building the kernel, hence make files must not make (unconditional) use of > features introduced only in newer versions. Commit 8779657d > ("stackprotector: Introduce CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG") however > introduced an "else ifdef" construct which make 3.80 doesn't understand. > > Also correct a warning message still referencing the old config option > name. > > Apart from that I question the use of "ifdef" here (but it was used that > way already prior to said commit): ifeq (,y) would seem more to the point. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Cc: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> > Cc: Michal Marek <mma...@suse.cz> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> > --- > > Makefile | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff -puN Makefile~makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again Makefile > --- a/Makefile~makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again > +++ a/Makefile > @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ endif > ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR > stackp-flag := -fstack-protector > ifeq ($(call cc-option, $(stackp-flag)),) > - $(warning Cannot use CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR: \ > + $(warning Cannot use CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR: \ > -fstack-protector not supported by compiler) > endif > else ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG > @@ -618,6 +618,7 @@ else > # Force off for distro compilers that enable stack protector by default. > stackp-flag := $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector) > endif > +endif > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(stackp-flag) > > # This warning generated too much noise in a regular build. > _ > > Patches currently in -mm which might be from jbeul...@suse.com are > > makefile-fix-build-with-make-380-again.patch >
This appears to be missing the: -else ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG +else +ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG chunk? -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
