Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 10:25:44 +0800
From: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
To: Matt Brown <matt@...tt.com>
Cc: kbuild-all@...org, james.l.morris@...cle.com, serge@...lyn.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Matt Brown <matt@...tt.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Add Trusted Path Execution as a stackable LSM

Hi Matt,

[auto build test WARNING on security/next]
[also build test WARNING on v4.12-rc5 next-20170615]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]

url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Matt-Brown/Add-Trusted-Path-Execution-as-a-stackable-LSM/20170609-115004
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git next
reproduce:
        # apt-get install sparse
        make ARCH=x86_64 allmodconfig
        make C=1 CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__


sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)

>> security/tpe/tpe_lsm.c:45:5: sparse: symbol 'print_tpe_error' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> security/tpe/tpe_lsm.c:128:5: sparse: symbol 'tpe_mmap_file' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> security/tpe/tpe_lsm.c:137:5: sparse: symbol 'tpe_file_mprotect' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> security/tpe/tpe_lsm.c:160:17: sparse: symbol 'tpe_sysctl_path' was not declared. Should it be static?

Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.

---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure                Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all                   Intel Corporation

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.