Re: scripts/selinux build error in 4.14 after glibc update

[Greg KH]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > 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