[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#943953: linux: DKMS module builds are failing on arm64 due to lack of armhf cross-compiler



Source: linux
Version: 5.3.7-1
Severity: normal
User: devel@kali.org
Usertags: origin-kali

https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/commit/82c843e1577930c4eb168f626ab9bd483b118efc
seems to break DKMS on arm64:

----
root@pinebook-kali:/usr/src# dkms autoinstall

Kernel preparation unnecessary for this kernel.  Skipping...

Building module:
cleaning build area...
'make' -j4 ARCH=arm64 KVER=5.3.0-kali1-arm64 KSRC=/lib/modules/5.3.0-kali1-arm64/build/...(bad exit status: 2)
Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 5.3.0-kali1-arm64 (aarch64)
Consult /var/lib/dkms/rtl8723cs/2019.07.31/build/make.log for more information.
root@pinebook-kali:/usr/src# cat /var/lib/dkms/rtl8723cs/2019.07.31/build/make.log 
DKMS make.log for rtl8723cs-2019.07.31 for kernel 5.3.0-kali1-arm64 (aarch64)
Fri Nov  1 03:50:50 CDT 2019
make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE= -C /lib/modules/5.3.0-kali1-arm64/build/ M=/var/lib/dkms/rtl8723cs/2019.07.31/build  modules
make[1]: Entering directory '/usr/src/linux-headers-5.3.0-kali1-arm64'
arch/arm64/Makefile:58: *** arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT.  Stop.
make[1]: *** [/usr/src/linux-headers-5.3.0-kali1-common/Makefile:179: sub-make] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/linux-headers-5.3.0-kali1-arm64'
make: *** [Makefile:1670: modules] Error 2
----

Some more information gathered on IRC:

16:51 <bwh> Oh, we have the Depends right, so I think the check in arch/arm64/Makefile needs to be suppressed when building out-of-tree modules
16:54 <buxy> bwh: what do you mean with "we have the Depends right" (i.e. with or without the cross-compiler)? on what package are you looking?
16:55 <bwh> The Depends for the linux-headers package don't include an armhf compiler, which is correct
16:55 <bwh> but the kernel build system still looks for it, which is not
16:55 <bwh> There are some upstream changes around this that might fix it

Cheers,
 Raphaël.

Reply to: