On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 15:24, Jonathan McDowell [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:19:16PM -0700, ross.philipson@oracle.com wrote:

quoted

On 8/28/24 10:14 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 19:09, kernel test robot [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Ross,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on tip/x86/core]
[also build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing char-misc/char-misc-next char-misc/char-misc-linus herbert-cryptodev-2.6/master efi/next linus/master v6.11-rc5]
[cannot apply to herbert-crypto-2.6/master next-20240828]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch*_base_tree_information__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIxuz-LAC$ ]

url:    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Ross-Philipson/Documentation-x86-Secure-Launch-kernel-documentation/20240827-065225__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmI7Z6SQKy$
base:   tip/x86/core
patch link:    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240826223835.3928819-21-ross.philipson*40oracle.com__;JQ!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIzWfs1XZ$
patch subject: [PATCH v10 20/20] x86/efi: EFI stub DRTM launch support for Secure Launch
config: i386-randconfig-062-20240828 (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240829/202408290030.FEbUhHbr-lkp@intel.com/config__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIwkYG0TY$ )

This is a i386 32-bit build, which makes no sense: this stuff should
just declare 'depends on 64BIT'

Our config entry already has 'depends on X86_64' which in turn depends on
64BIT. I would think that would be enough. Do you think it needs an explicit
'depends on 64BIT' in our entry as well?

The error is in x86-stub.c, which is pre-existing and compiled for 32
bit as well, so you need more than a "depends" here.

Ugh, that means this is my fault - apologies. Replacing the #ifdef
with IS_ENABLED() makes the code visible to the 32-bit compiler, even
though the code is disregarded.

I'd still prefer IS_ENABLED(), but this would require the code in
question to live in a separate compilation unit (which depends on
CONFIG_SECURE_LAUNCH). If that is too fiddly, feel free to bring back
the #ifdef CONFIG_SECURE_LAUNCH here (and retain my R-b)