From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81CE8C433F5 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:41:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3787A60BBB; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:41:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ngCg1SiY8D87; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:41:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5BB60B1E; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0591BF293 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABBD4010E for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:41:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.microsoft.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pAaKOSeGiREW for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:41:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075C1400A6 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pwmachine.localnet (unknown [92.186.13.154]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EEDB220C3620; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:41:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com EEDB220C3620 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1650390108; bh=KO/rPTrDLiYD0p8SkOO7ebTXTqnQf+aavZJ7/qlA57M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=JMzKQ6TgpWUJ1AzfdjxEnut5FKRHbuHgTjcP2OrlF3YRnlhXHr3yCSqa8I5zmFuN8 vV+IB7MaNWMTheK1jkfAY2aP9CVoo77zp43E6C2+iv5iWbjShTIaXET61BwPspFp0q PQvwJCMk3ETglMBwAmBdI0qxVqITF/oGDKXNHPWM= From: Francis Laniel To: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:41:44 +0100 Message-ID: <12997361.uLZWGnKmhe@pwmachine> Organization: Microsoft In-Reply-To: <20220417104244.6d681b10@windsurf> References: <2098999.irdbgypaU6@pwmachine> <20220417104244.6d681b10@windsurf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Your daily results for 2022-04-14 X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Yann E. MORIN" , "buildroot@buildroot.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" Hi. Le dimanche 17 avril 2022, 09:42:44 BST Thomas Petazzoni a =E9crit : > On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:42:23 +0100 > = > Francis Laniel wrote: > > > arch | reason | > > > = > > > url > > > = > > > -------------+--------------------------------+----------------------= --- > > > --- > > > ----------------------------------------------------- xtensa | > > > host-pahole-v1.23 | > > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/fa4fb6ca383e058e89ff8796ac9ae6= 8a0 > > > b16 > > > 81b5 m68k | host-pahole-v1.23 | > > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b584c57a72e4604112f4b12c0c7b21= e1a > > > 4b4 > > > 1dd5 arm | host-pahole-v1.23 | > > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b43be30cb177066d1b49bf4822790e= c0c > > > 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 h= ost > > 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>=3D0.4.0) > 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