* Re: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Your daily results for 2022-04-14 [not found] <2098999.irdbgypaU6@pwmachine> @ 2022-04-17 8:42 ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot 2022-04-19 17:41 ` Francis Laniel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot @ 2022-04-17 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Francis Laniel; +Cc: Yann E. MORIN, buildroot@buildroot.org On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:42:23 +0100 Francis Laniel <flaniel@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > arch | reason | > > url > > -------------+--------------------------------+---------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------- xtensa | > > host-pahole-v1.23 | > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/fa4fb6ca383e058e89ff8796ac9ae68a0b16 > > 81b5 m68k | host-pahole-v1.23 | > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b584c57a72e4604112f4b12c0c7b21e1a4b4 > > 1dd5 arm | host-pahole-v1.23 | > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b43be30cb177066d1b49bf4822790ec0ca01 > > 9d03 > > > > > > Thanks for your contribution to Buildroot! > > I suspect this problem occurs because Ubuntu 14.04 kernel does not know the > problematic symbols. > Indeed, PERF_COUNT_SW_BPF_OUTPUT was added in : > a43eec304259 ("bpf: introduce bpf_perf_event_output() helper") > which was released with kernel 4.4. > So, can you please give me the uname -r of the host-distro? I can't because these build issues (or at least the last one) occurs on Yann Morin's autobuilder, so I've added yann in Cc. > If my suspicion is good, I already wrote a patch to throw an error if host > kernel is under 4.4 while building host-pahole. This is not going to be the solution. Why does host-pahole depend on the version of the kernel? Why does it need the NR_bpf symbol? There is some logic in src/bpf.c to get __NR_bpf if not provided by kernel headers: #ifndef __NR_bpf # if defined(__i386__) # define __NR_bpf 357 # elif defined(__x86_64__) # define __NR_bpf 321 # elif defined(__aarch64__) # define __NR_bpf 280 # elif defined(__sparc__) # define __NR_bpf 349 # elif defined(__s390__) # define __NR_bpf 351 # elif defined(__arc__) # define __NR_bpf 280 # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABIO32) # define __NR_bpf 4355 # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABIN32) # define __NR_bpf 6319 # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABI64) # define __NR_bpf 5315 # else # error __NR_bpf not defined. libbpf does not support your arch. # endif #endif but this logic is only partially duplicated in src/skel_internal.h: #ifndef __NR_bpf # if defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABIO32) # define __NR_bpf 4355 # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABIN32) # define __NR_bpf 6319 # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABI64) # define __NR_bpf 5315 # endif #endif That doesn't make much sense. Do we need that BPF support in host-pahole in our use-case of host-pahole? BTW, I'm seeing that we can avoid using the internal libbpf, and therefore avoid using git submodules: option(LIBBPF_EMBEDDED "Use the embedded version of libbpf instead of searching it via pkg-config" ON) if (NOT LIBBPF_EMBEDDED) find_package(PkgConfig REQUIRED) if(PKGCONFIG_FOUND) pkg_check_modules(LIBBPF REQUIRED libbpf>=0.4.0) endif() endif() So we should definitely do that, and have a separate Buildroot package for libbpf. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Your daily results for 2022-04-14 2022-04-17 8:42 ` [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Your daily results for 2022-04-14 Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot @ 2022-04-19 17:41 ` Francis Laniel 2022-04-19 18:43 ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Francis Laniel @ 2022-04-19 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Petazzoni; +Cc: Yann E. MORIN, buildroot@buildroot.org Hi. Le dimanche 17 avril 2022, 09:42:44 BST Thomas Petazzoni a écrit : > On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:42:23 +0100 > > Francis Laniel <flaniel@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > arch | reason | > > > > > > url > > > > > > -------------+--------------------------------+------------------------- > > > --- > > > ----------------------------------------------------- xtensa | > > > host-pahole-v1.23 | > > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/fa4fb6ca383e058e89ff8796ac9ae68a0 > > > b16 > > > 81b5 m68k | host-pahole-v1.23 | > > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b584c57a72e4604112f4b12c0c7b21e1a > > > 4b4 > > > 1dd5 arm | host-pahole-v1.23 | > > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b43be30cb177066d1b49bf4822790ec0c > > > a01 > > > 9d03 > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your contribution to Buildroot! > > > > I suspect this problem occurs because Ubuntu 14.04 kernel does not know > > the > > problematic symbols. > > Indeed, PERF_COUNT_SW_BPF_OUTPUT was added in : > > a43eec304259 ("bpf: introduce bpf_perf_event_output() helper") > > which was released with kernel 4.4. > > So, can you please give me the uname -r of the host-distro? > > I can't because these build issues (or at least the last one) occurs on > Yann Morin's autobuilder, so I've added yann in Cc. > > > If my suspicion is good, I already wrote a patch to throw an error if host > > kernel is under 4.4 while building host-pahole. > > This is not going to be the solution. Why does host-pahole depend on > the version of the kernel? Why does it need the NR_bpf symbol? > > There is some logic in src/bpf.c to get __NR_bpf if not provided by > kernel headers: > > #ifndef __NR_bpf > # if defined(__i386__) > # define __NR_bpf 357 > # elif defined(__x86_64__) > # define __NR_bpf 321 > # elif defined(__aarch64__) > # define __NR_bpf 280 > # elif defined(__sparc__) > # define __NR_bpf 349 > # elif defined(__s390__) > # define __NR_bpf 351 > # elif defined(__arc__) > # define __NR_bpf 280 > # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABIO32) > # define __NR_bpf 4355 > # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABIN32) > # define __NR_bpf 6319 > # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABI64) > # define __NR_bpf 5315 > # else > # error __NR_bpf not defined. libbpf does not support your arch. > # endif > #endif > > but this logic is only partially duplicated in src/skel_internal.h: > > #ifndef __NR_bpf > # if defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABIO32) > # define __NR_bpf 4355 > # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABIN32) > # define __NR_bpf 6319 > # elif defined(__mips__) && defined(_ABI64) > # define __NR_bpf 5315 > # endif > #endif > > That doesn't make much sense. > > Do we need that BPF support in host-pahole in our use-case of host-pahole? > > BTW, I'm seeing that we can avoid using the internal libbpf, and > therefore avoid using git submodules: > > option(LIBBPF_EMBEDDED "Use the embedded version of libbpf instead of > searching it via pkg-config" ON) if (NOT LIBBPF_EMBEDDED) > find_package(PkgConfig REQUIRED) > if(PKGCONFIG_FOUND) > pkg_check_modules(LIBBPF REQUIRED libbpf>=0.4.0) > endif() > endif() > > So we should definitely do that, and have a separate Buildroot package > for libbpf. I think upstream code has actually a problem buildroot test infrastructure highlighted. So, from my understanding, the best solution would be to patch upstream libbpf. Indeed, I do not think adding a buildroot package will solve this problem. Were you suggesting than by adding a buildroot package we could add a local patch to fix this behavior? > Best regards, > > Thomas Best regards. _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Your daily results for 2022-04-14 2022-04-19 17:41 ` Francis Laniel @ 2022-04-19 18:43 ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot @ 2022-04-19 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Francis Laniel; +Cc: Yann E. MORIN, buildroot@buildroot.org On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:41:44 +0100 Francis Laniel <flaniel@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > I think upstream code has actually a problem buildroot test infrastructure > highlighted. > So, from my understanding, the best solution would be to patch upstream > libbpf. > Indeed, I do not think adding a buildroot package will solve this problem. > > Were you suggesting than by adding a buildroot package we could add a local > patch to fix this behavior? What I meant is that pahole bundles libbpf as a git submodule, but can also use an external libbpf. In the context of Buildroot, we would very much prefer to have a separate host-libbpf package, with host-pahole depending on it (and not using its own copy of libbpf). Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-04-19 18:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <2098999.irdbgypaU6@pwmachine>
2022-04-17 8:42 ` [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Your daily results for 2022-04-14 Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot
2022-04-19 17:41 ` Francis Laniel
2022-04-19 18:43 ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.