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@linuxfoundation.org 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@kernel.org 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@gmail.com 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@paulo.ac
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?
thanks,
greg k-h