From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) (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 027E01420A8 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 03:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736565624; cv=none; b=KccnRpsg+mLsS4ypWm517fuNAxYzf4RlCGM3nGccHDp7H5ZD2MblD1V3xrAQfBFFeEu6I6y9KpQofqbXQEsKBrlkUAXIeCLeKJbj+fmQAACl1dXPODLnpe5MeE/OXE8qv17HnZBmzOyfwlZYoMb1Tbu+euDqcR+a4uxMgUFCpbw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736565624; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vv3etMNIsJNzKK13EcboMYfE7hFrWcDdMlsEoObsAtI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=e9ESbLw+gLvTpPZoAhhOtfa3W+M8Xr9WMAblizagtGa1mPaRkpUlhA/HYVk/6eqRu7LkDArrkgn+/Uv3JvI+IHKwHEp2sMU0yAN9jYLpWg+XzijbUPyYiTTiD86I2t5+WqwW0A8rq400tcdyoninPFSpX9BY+csHXc5l1uiD340= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=FEkoW7tB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="FEkoW7tB" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1736565623; x=1768101623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=vv3etMNIsJNzKK13EcboMYfE7hFrWcDdMlsEoObsAtI=; b=FEkoW7tB3mfpvzQ1ZLAscyRmzyvZ85HW57mUHwiP9OBKoyRuTzmjiKe5 RGLoXo+kTFLys6HxnthtHvuRsT9W94yQweIm9hkdRbyKsWnpzS2fBQrqF ZWQ4QAI4ZEe6ZVWewMW3r5Nzl8xOb9OeqQJfG1Ef7Mfui/UhcsiRZd/Bz VnuzDoMBW2Z6gruzb5rxsi274TtDhC08vsOp/m2i0/5orMVGXshzYpz3d dQvz9jN4G7qyVL5sabTJ9a1umKhadfnEqjVeBBSmXXYAdkXNunTXxE+tn 2B9M5WQhfyNdmnQDBBsgPR3ScjXX4qtcl4Qf0ICo0oDa4iGUHmqUiRlDO w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: p3yFlrhTSgWRB26Bacr4hw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Kbw5083ZTm2ksPG9Hdi7zw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11311"; a="59352317" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,306,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="59352317" Received: from orviesa010.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.150]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jan 2025 19:20:21 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 1t1XIpT/RSWWFZuobHp5TQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: GdM6t1eZQc69Rywb+l63eQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,224,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="103782415" Received: from lkp-server01.sh.intel.com (HELO d63d4d77d921) ([10.239.97.150]) by orviesa010.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2025 19:20:18 -0800 Received: from kbuild by d63d4d77d921 with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tWS2p-000K5r-1n; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 03:20:15 +0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 11:19:19 +0800 From: kernel test robot To: Blaise Boscaccy , bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, nkapron@google.com, teknoraver@meta.com, roberto.sassu@huawei.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, paul@paul-moore.com, code@tyhicks.com, flaniel@linux.microsoft.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] bpf: Implement BTF fixup functionality Message-ID: <202501111043.1XoiVhsx-lkp@intel.com> References: <20250109214617.485144-11-bboscaccy@linux.microsoft.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250109214617.485144-11-bboscaccy@linux.microsoft.com> Hi Blaise, kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: [auto build test ERROR on bpf/master] [also build test ERROR on linus/master v6.13-rc6] [cannot apply to bpf-next/master next-20250110] [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/Blaise-Boscaccy/bpf-Add-data-structures-for-managing-in-kernel-eBPF-relocations/20250110-064354 base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git master patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250109214617.485144-11-bboscaccy%40linux.microsoft.com patch subject: [PATCH 10/14] bpf: Implement BTF fixup functionality config: i386-buildonly-randconfig-006-20250111 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250111/202501111043.1XoiVhsx-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: clang version 19.1.3 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project ab51eccf88f5321e7c60591c5546b254b6afab99) reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250111/202501111043.1XoiVhsx-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/202501111043.1XoiVhsx-lkp@intel.com/ All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): kernel/bpf/syscall.c:6438:22: error: incompatible pointer types passing 'Elf32_Sym *' (aka 'struct elf32_sym *') to parameter of type 'const Elf64_Sym *' (aka 'const struct elf64_sym *') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 6438 | if (!sym_is_extern(&sym[i])) | ^~~~~~~ kernel/bpf/syscall.c:6082:44: note: passing argument to parameter 'sym' here 6082 | static bool sym_is_extern(const Elf64_Sym *sym) | ^ kernel/bpf/syscall.c:6463:20: error: call to undeclared function 'bpf_core_essential_name_len'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] 6463 | ext_essent_len = bpf_core_essential_name_len(ext->name); | ^ >> kernel/bpf/syscall.c:6664:11: error: incompatible pointer types returning 'Elf32_Sym *' (aka 'struct elf32_sym *') from a function with result type 'Elf64_Sym *' (aka 'struct elf64_sym *') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 6664 | return &sym[i]; | ^~~~~~~ kernel/bpf/syscall.c:7286:30: warning: bitwise operation between different enumeration types ('enum bpf_arg_type' and 'enum bpf_type_flag') [-Wenum-enum-conversion] 7286 | .arg2_type = ARG_PTR_TO_MEM | MEM_RDONLY, | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/bpf/syscall.c:7336:41: warning: bitwise operation between different enumeration types ('enum bpf_arg_type' and 'enum bpf_type_flag') [-Wenum-enum-conversion] 7336 | .arg4_type = ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM | MEM_UNINIT | MEM_WRITE | MEM_ALIGNED, | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ~~~~~~~~~~ 2 warnings and 3 errors generated. vim +6664 kernel/bpf/syscall.c 6648 6649 static Elf64_Sym *find_elf_var_sym(const struct bpf_obj *obj, const char *name) 6650 { 6651 unsigned int i; 6652 Elf_Shdr *symsec = &obj->sechdrs[obj->index.sym]; 6653 Elf_Sym *sym = (void *)obj->hdr + symsec->sh_offset; 6654 6655 for (i = 1; i < symsec->sh_size / sizeof(Elf_Sym); i++) { 6656 if (ELF64_ST_TYPE(sym[i].st_info) != STT_OBJECT) 6657 continue; 6658 6659 if (ELF64_ST_BIND(sym[i].st_info) != STB_GLOBAL && 6660 ELF64_ST_BIND(sym[i].st_info) != STB_WEAK) 6661 continue; 6662 6663 if (strcmp(name, obj->strtab + sym[i].st_name) == 0) > 6664 return &sym[i]; 6665 6666 } 6667 return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT); 6668 } 6669 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki