security/apparmor/include/lib.h | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
This follows the established practice and fixes a build failure for me:
security/apparmor/file.c: In function ‘__file_sock_perm’:
security/apparmor/file.c:544:24: error: unused variable ‘sock’ [-Werror=unused-variable]
544 | struct socket *sock = (struct socket *) file->private_data;
| ^~~~
Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
---
Plausibly the sock var wants to be eliminated altogether, but I just
want this to build.
security/apparmor/include/lib.h | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/security/apparmor/include/lib.h b/security/apparmor/include/lib.h
index 256f4577c653..d947998262b2 100644
--- a/security/apparmor/include/lib.h
+++ b/security/apparmor/include/lib.h
@@ -60,7 +60,11 @@ do { \
#define AA_BUG_FMT(X, fmt, args...) \
WARN((X), "AppArmor WARN %s: (" #X "): " fmt, __func__, ##args)
#else
-#define AA_BUG_FMT(X, fmt, args...) no_printk(fmt, ##args)
+#define AA_BUG_FMT(X, fmt, args...) \
+ do { \
+ BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(X); \
+ no_printk(fmt, ##args); \
+ } while (0)
#endif
int aa_parse_debug_params(const char *str);
--
2.43.0
On 1/27/25 12:54, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> This follows the established practice and fixes a build failure for me:
> security/apparmor/file.c: In function ‘__file_sock_perm’:
> security/apparmor/file.c:544:24: error: unused variable ‘sock’ [-Werror=unused-variable]
> 544 | struct socket *sock = (struct socket *) file->private_data;
> | ^~~~
>
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
thanks, I have pulled this into my tree
> ---
>
> Plausibly the sock var wants to be eliminated altogether, but I just
> want this to build.
>
> security/apparmor/include/lib.h | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/include/lib.h b/security/apparmor/include/lib.h
> index 256f4577c653..d947998262b2 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/include/lib.h
> +++ b/security/apparmor/include/lib.h
> @@ -60,7 +60,11 @@ do { \
> #define AA_BUG_FMT(X, fmt, args...) \
> WARN((X), "AppArmor WARN %s: (" #X "): " fmt, __func__, ##args)
> #else
> -#define AA_BUG_FMT(X, fmt, args...) no_printk(fmt, ##args)
> +#define AA_BUG_FMT(X, fmt, args...) \
> + do { \
> + BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(X); \
> + no_printk(fmt, ##args); \
> + } while (0)
> #endif
>
> int aa_parse_debug_params(const char *str);
For the record, a previous patch that removes the sock variable was
previously accepted:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/2025-January/013449.html
(patch) and https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/2025-January/013463.html
(ack from John Johansen)
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 12:54 PM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This follows the established practice and fixes a build failure for me:
> security/apparmor/file.c: In function ‘__file_sock_perm’:
> security/apparmor/file.c:544:24: error: unused variable ‘sock’ [-Werror=unused-variable]
> 544 | struct socket *sock = (struct socket *) file->private_data;
> | ^~~~
>
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Plausibly the sock var wants to be eliminated altogether, but I just
> want this to build.
>
> security/apparmor/include/lib.h | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/include/lib.h b/security/apparmor/include/lib.h
> index 256f4577c653..d947998262b2 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/include/lib.h
> +++ b/security/apparmor/include/lib.h
> @@ -60,7 +60,11 @@ do { \
> #define AA_BUG_FMT(X, fmt, args...) \
> WARN((X), "AppArmor WARN %s: (" #X "): " fmt, __func__, ##args)
> #else
> -#define AA_BUG_FMT(X, fmt, args...) no_printk(fmt, ##args)
> +#define AA_BUG_FMT(X, fmt, args...) \
> + do { \
> + BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(X); \
> + no_printk(fmt, ##args); \
> + } while (0)
> #endif
>
> int aa_parse_debug_params(const char *str);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 9:59 PM Ryan Lee <ryan.lee@canonical.com> wrote: > > For the record, a previous patch that removes the sock variable was > previously accepted: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/2025-January/013449.html > (patch) and https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/2025-January/013463.html > (ack from John Johansen) > That makes sense, but imo the posted patch is still warranted -- all other debug macros (WARN_ON, VM_WARN_ON etc.) are expected to evaluate the condition. -- Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.