Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190220184341.73bd2084@canb.auug.org.au> <1114b964-8ff8-5632-64d4-e94a9160b998@hisilicon.com>
 <20190220095252.GA9089@linux.intel.com> <20190220095806.GB9089@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190220095806.GB9089@linux.intel.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 11:05:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu8G5eWeAdCB28xa=16ANFd2he9WPSztgXYwYRkhPfpEyA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:58, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:52:52AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 05:11:15PM +0800, Zhangshaokun wrote:
> > > There is a compiler failure on arm64 platform, as follow:
> > >
> > >   AS      arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.o
> > >   CC      kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
> > > In file included from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:0:
> > > security/integrity/ima/ima.h:176:7: error: redeclaration of enumerato=
r =E2=80=98NONE=E2=80=99
> > >   hook(NONE)   \
> > >        ^
> > > security/integrity/ima/ima.h:188:34: note: in definition of macro =E2=
=80=98__ima_hook_enumify=E2=80=99
> > >  #define __ima_hook_enumify(ENUM) ENUM,
> > >                                   ^
> > > security/integrity/ima/ima.h:191:2: note: in expansion of macro =E2=
=80=98__ima_hooks=E2=80=99
> > >   __ima_hooks(__ima_hook_enumify)
> > >   ^
> > > In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h:15:0,
> > >                  from ./include/acpi/acpi_io.h:7,
> > >                  from ./include/linux/acpi.h:47,
> > >                  from ./include/linux/tpm.h:26,
> > >                  from security/integrity/ima/ima.h:25,
> > >                  from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:
> > > ./include/linux/efi.h:1716:2: note: previous definition of =E2=80=98N=
ONE=E2=80=99 was here
> > >   NONE,
> > >   ^
> > > scripts/Makefile.build:276: recipe for target 'security/integrity/ima=
/ima_fs.o' failed
> > > make[3]: *** [security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o] Error 1
> > >
> > > I dug it and it is the commit 901615cb916d ("tpm: move tpm_chip defin=
ition to include/linux/tpm.h")
> >
> > This results from a new include in tpm.h:
> >
> >   #include <linux/acpi.h>
> >
> > Must be fixed either in include/linux/efi.h or security/integrity/ima.h=
 as
> > those files have a name collision. Makes me wonder why neither has take=
n
> > care of prefixing the constants properly.
>
> Preferably both subsystems should be fixed with proper 'EFI_' and 'IMA_'
> prefixes. Defining a constant named as NONE in a non-generic subsystem
> (e.g. not part of the core data structures of Linux) and especially
> exporting it to include/linux is not too well considered act.
>

Fixes for this have already been proposed, and should appear in -next short=
ly

The EFI one is here
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/linux-efi/FMfcgxwBVgrQRjglPkWRqRqVc=
lGgVDnB

Not sure about the IMA one, Mimi should be able to comment ...