Re: [PATCH v2] sh: implicit access_ok() needs an #include

[Randy Dunlap]

On 2/2/23 00:22, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 8:52 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023, at 06:31, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> Building arch/sh/ has a build error/warning that is fixed by
>>> adding an #include of a header file.
>>>
>>> ../arch/sh/include/asm/checksum_32.h: In function
>>> 'csum_and_copy_from_user':
>>> ../arch/sh/include/asm/checksum_32.h:53:14: error: implicit declaration
>>> of function 'access_ok' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>    53 |         if (!access_ok(src, len))
>>>       |              ^~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Fixes: 7fe8970a78a1 ("sh32: convert to csum_and_copy_from_user()")
>>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Yoshinori Sato <ysato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> v2: add Subject: and patch description
>>
>> Thanks for the fix!
>>
>>>
>>>  arch/sh/include/asm/checksum_32.h |    1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff -- a/arch/sh/include/asm/checksum_32.h b/arch/sh/include/asm/checksum_32.h
>>> --- a/arch/sh/include/asm/checksum_32.h
>>> +++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/checksum_32.h
>>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>>>   */
>>>
>>>  #include <linux/in6.h>
>>> +#include <asm-generic/access_ok.h>
>>
>> This will work correctly, but it is not the intended usage of the
>> header. Anything in asm-generic/*.h should only be included by
>> a particular header, usually the asm/*.h with the same name or in this
>> case the asm/uaccess.h header.
>>
>> I think the correct fix here is to include asm/uaccess.h instead
>> of asm-generic/access_ok.h.
> 
> Which should already be there, or RSN:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/167514181688.11863.771497291150527329.git-patchwork-notify@xxxxxxxxxx

Good to see that. And thanks to both of you.

-- 
~Randy