From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 783A938DE6; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 16:19:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1696349947; x=1727885947; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=3ikgXrOzo8Y/MGb3oTaGhh++Y0tW7btqJE45rVxvvxI=; b=ZoV5veDff1TPc6k0NSm5ltLhhZQTIikWhLFFqtAtyMNz3hfWo30MHLRr pEvFYZvEITqhBHfXKoIL6dVQkEeggZEOQ7FsyfPQo8TcemO3dM+h7J3Fi ivyDeoVwu5maxRtyzub1Gkcq4iVtuCB8fk1jlpHlNt9UlNg1NQUe02soZ 4zAMzXy1Th9ekoxmTq4VeZ+2QzF4YQSn21UvqmAjmD49f1ke5KMDAKTHl PUfGVnzKS7fQccTS1BMFQ4/V5g8GSfh8/us80irH+HZQk7y2y0ybNnPMn ++a8lNA4naARoMrhj+rLbz6nLx3GJYS56/kB6oGVmxS6Ni2Qe00f8m28r Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10852"; a="367973732" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,197,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="367973732" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Oct 2023 09:18:08 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10852"; a="874752777" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,197,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="874752777" Received: from lkp-server02.sh.intel.com (HELO c3b01524d57c) ([10.239.97.151]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2023 09:18:07 -0700 Received: from kbuild by c3b01524d57c with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1qni61-0007OR-06; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 16:18:05 +0000 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 00:17:04 +0800 From: kernel test robot To: Hengqi Chen Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] seccomp: Introduce SECCOMP_LOAD_FILTER operation Message-ID: <202310040027.1dNPiBPq-lkp@intel.com> References: <20231003083836.100706-2-hengqi.chen@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231003083836.100706-2-hengqi.chen@gmail.com> Hi Hengqi, [This is a private test report for your RFC patch.] kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: [auto build test ERROR on kees/for-next/seccomp] [also build test ERROR on kees/for-next/pstore kees/for-next/kspp linus/master v6.6-rc4 next-20231003] [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information] url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Hengqi-Chen/seccomp-Introduce-SECCOMP_LOAD_FILTER-operation/20231003-164556 base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git for-next/seccomp patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231003083836.100706-2-hengqi.chen%40gmail.com patch subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] seccomp: Introduce SECCOMP_LOAD_FILTER operation config: um-allyesconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231004/202310040027.1dNPiBPq-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: clang version 14.0.6 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git f28c006a5895fc0e329fe15fead81e37457cb1d1) reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231004/202310040027.1dNPiBPq-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: kernel test robot | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202310040027.1dNPiBPq-lkp@intel.com/ All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): In file included from kernel/seccomp.c:29: In file included from include/linux/syscalls.h:90: In file included from include/trace/syscall.h:7: In file included from include/linux/trace_events.h:9: In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:11: In file included from arch/um/include/asm/hardirq.h:5: In file included from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17: In file included from include/linux/irq.h:20: In file included from include/linux/io.h:13: In file included from arch/um/include/asm/io.h:24: include/asm-generic/io.h:547:31: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] val = __raw_readb(PCI_IOBASE + addr); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:560:61: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] val = __le16_to_cpu((__le16 __force)__raw_readw(PCI_IOBASE + addr)); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h:37:51: note: expanded from macro '__le16_to_cpu' #define __le16_to_cpu(x) ((__force __u16)(__le16)(x)) ^ In file included from kernel/seccomp.c:29: In file included from include/linux/syscalls.h:90: In file included from include/trace/syscall.h:7: In file included from include/linux/trace_events.h:9: In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:11: In file included from arch/um/include/asm/hardirq.h:5: In file included from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17: In file included from include/linux/irq.h:20: In file included from include/linux/io.h:13: In file included from arch/um/include/asm/io.h:24: include/asm-generic/io.h:573:61: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] val = __le32_to_cpu((__le32 __force)__raw_readl(PCI_IOBASE + addr)); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h:35:51: note: expanded from macro '__le32_to_cpu' #define __le32_to_cpu(x) ((__force __u32)(__le32)(x)) ^ In file included from kernel/seccomp.c:29: In file included from include/linux/syscalls.h:90: In file included from include/trace/syscall.h:7: In file included from include/linux/trace_events.h:9: In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:11: In file included from arch/um/include/asm/hardirq.h:5: In file included from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17: In file included from include/linux/irq.h:20: In file included from include/linux/io.h:13: In file included from arch/um/include/asm/io.h:24: include/asm-generic/io.h:584:33: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] __raw_writeb(value, PCI_IOBASE + addr); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:594:59: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] __raw_writew((u16 __force)cpu_to_le16(value), PCI_IOBASE + addr); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:604:59: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] __raw_writel((u32 __force)cpu_to_le32(value), PCI_IOBASE + addr); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:692:20: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] readsb(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:700:20: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] readsw(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:708:20: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] readsl(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:717:21: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] writesb(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:726:21: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] writesw(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:735:21: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] writesl(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ >> kernel/seccomp.c:2034:8: error: implicit declaration of function 'security_bpf_prog_alloc' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration] ret = security_bpf_prog_alloc(prog->aux); ^ kernel/seccomp.c:2034:8: note: did you mean 'security_msg_msg_alloc'? include/linux/security.h:1245:19: note: 'security_msg_msg_alloc' declared here static inline int security_msg_msg_alloc(struct msg_msg *msg) ^ >> kernel/seccomp.c:2043:8: error: implicit declaration of function 'bpf_prog_new_fd' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration] ret = bpf_prog_new_fd(prog); ^ 12 warnings and 2 errors generated. vim +/security_bpf_prog_alloc +2034 kernel/seccomp.c 2011 2012 #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT 2013 if (in_compat_syscall()) { 2014 struct compat_sock_fprog fprog32; 2015 if (copy_from_user(&fprog32, filter, sizeof(fprog32))) 2016 goto out; 2017 fprog.len = fprog32.len; 2018 fprog.filter = compat_ptr(fprog32.filter); 2019 } else /* falls through to the if below. */ 2020 #endif 2021 if (copy_from_user(&fprog, filter, sizeof(fprog))) 2022 goto out; 2023 2024 ret = -EINVAL; 2025 if (fprog.len == 0 || fprog.len > BPF_MAXINSNS) 2026 goto out; 2027 2028 BUG_ON(INT_MAX / fprog.len < sizeof(struct sock_filter)); 2029 2030 ret = bpf_prog_create_from_user(&prog, &fprog, seccomp_check_filter, save_orig); 2031 if (ret < 0) 2032 goto out; 2033 > 2034 ret = security_bpf_prog_alloc(prog->aux); 2035 if (ret) { 2036 ret = -EINVAL; 2037 goto prog_free; 2038 } 2039 2040 prog->aux->user = get_current_user(); 2041 atomic64_set(&prog->aux->refcnt, 1); 2042 > 2043 ret = bpf_prog_new_fd(prog); 2044 if (ret < 0) 2045 bpf_prog_put(prog); 2046 return ret; 2047 2048 prog_free: 2049 bpf_prog_free(prog); 2050 out: 2051 return ret; 2052 } 2053 #else 2054 static inline long seccomp_set_mode_filter(unsigned int flags, 2055 const char __user *filter) 2056 { 2057 return -EINVAL; 2058 } 2059 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki