From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] um: Avoid longjmp/setjmp symbol clashes with libpthread.a References: <20170524003232.14319-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> From: Florian Fainelli Message-ID: <6ca6b4d6-29e2-19bb-64ef-963d88e89bed@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:40:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Weinberger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jeff Dike , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , "open list:USER-MODE LINUX (UML)" , "open list:USER-MODE LINUX (UML)" List-ID: On 06/05/2017 12:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Florian, > > Am 05.06.2017 um 21:32 schrieb Florian Fainelli: >> On 05/23/2017 05:32 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> Building a statically linked UML kernel on a Centos 6.9 host resulted in >>> the following linking failure (GCC 4.4, glibc-2.12): >>> >>> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.4.7/../../../../lib64/libpthread.a(libpthread.o): >>> In function `siglongjmp': >>> (.text+0x8490): multiple definition of `longjmp' >>> arch/x86/um/built-in.o:/local/users/fainelli/openwrt/trunk/build_dir/target-x86_64_musl/linux-uml/linux-4.4.69/arch/x86/um/setjmp_64.S:44: >>> first defined here >>> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.4.7/../../../../lib64/libpthread.a(libpthread.o): >>> In function `sem_open': >>> (.text+0x77cd): warning: the use of `mktemp' is dangerous, better use >>> `mkstemp' >>> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status >>> make[4]: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 >>> >>> Adopt a solution similar to the one done for vmap where we define >>> longjmp/setjmp to be kernel_longjmp/setjmp. In the process, make sure we >>> do rename the functions in arch/x86/um/setjmp_*.S accordingly. >>> >>> Fixes: a7df4716d195 ("um: link with -lpthread") >>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli >> >> Richard, we are kind of hijacking this thread now that was originally >> about statically linking UML, is this particular patch okay? > > Hehe, yes. > This patch is good, I like it. :) > It will part of the next pull request. Humm okay, did you apply the patch in one of your kernel trees on git.kernel.org or somewhere else? -- Florian