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 bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 878B6CD3427 for ; Sun, 10 May 2026 19:32:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=xEQaWJh+9RNjFjr+WddCWW9fRUv90ZcJVBqGUtK51X8=; b=WM3WBpuJHHt3SJvg5tNbyeIWRe qdHC9a9avbLYr5YQT41ImyMzA4N4dAwPEJp90uWeVTC5KAvIwd284pxCU7DHEEWY3Q/j/dzyinaxn q4nrY0QTjV5Jrrb+te8BzyhsAMjZxPSIrbGhyPfH4UCiaAQBUQwXqiCGkUZXyK1AnHddAK/d3RrCD v+N95hGZ7bjyFlOPr2Z+mKAyVlRoPNc26OhLbivdDp53OU57J75FFrtivO+6o337vwDw3e6UFY8uk SzBB4vbP6tAI52RBp2JGGfrbA7smXoSuvoeXN/nko8M2BHPdcojTA593eunwkf5vSKBQEbheL5Ki9 NaNBmXWQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wM9sl-0000000BV06-0YJJ; Sun, 10 May 2026 19:32:07 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wM9sj-0000000BUzq-43uW for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 10 May 2026 19:32:06 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B6C6001A; Sun, 10 May 2026 19:32:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E672C2BCB8; Sun, 10 May 2026 19:32:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778441524; bh=oosQGewjKOseq/Zf5kpRlYqAjqUau3hSHYi43sFgkAA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=JyADTMisvVNX5qwlsV0UQO/IiW9peVSs44lX9szf4Nkxsa6mNgJqBu2InpqVUUWhu nqJYbyzOlwlSYlqs6SmxsJdsNVaO9vZpzb44YMH5RV8UXIB0cCpd1EeMsvue1KLoIV b7O2/4EQSSJCvAHEX3k6kj+tUXoTMsCpB94Mko8Gs6E1+xC9rsbiJWewU6zAqpywFy gJ7zuRiwaLPPe+iCtoE8UJsllLPSrpXvMLOqJi+XDO1fJySNyjdbCNW8S1+O6WPcxL 6IpObWWpKyHqZ399vvy+59K3d/NxrxQia8vhz/3TUbCD5To2e+T5ixm7gE1tjl8Buo HIfAELBrUFThQ== From: Thomas Gleixner To: Arnd Bergmann , Will Deacon , Robin Murphy , Joerg Roedel , Andrew Morton Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] debugobjects: avoid gcc-16.0.1 section mismatch In-Reply-To: <20260203162406.2215716-1-arnd@kernel.org> References: <20260203162406.2215716-1-arnd@kernel.org> Date: Sun, 10 May 2026 21:31:59 +0200 Message-ID: <874ikf9i34.ffs@tglx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Feb 03 2026 at 17:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > From: Arnd Bergmann > > gcc-16 has gained some more advanced inlining techniques that enable > it to inline the is_static_object() function pointer into a specialized > version of lookup_object_or_alloc: > > WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: lookup_object_or_alloc.part.0+0x1ac (section: .text) -> is_static_object (section: .init.text) > > From what I can tell, the transformation is correct, as this > is only called when lookup_object_or_alloc() is called from > debug_objects_selftest(), which is also __init. So clearly the compiler is buggy. It creates an __init specific copy of lookup_object_or_alloc() and then fails to attribute it correctly. > I have not come up with a good workaround, so this simply marks > is_static_object() as not __init. Since there are currently only two > files where this happens, that may be an easy way out. That's a horrible hack and while it's only two files today, this sounds like the start of a whack a mole game. Aside of that five weeks down the road some clever AI bot creates a patch which marks the function __init again (rightfully so). > If anyone has a better idea for how to deal with that, let me know! Mark the compiler broken and wait until GCC people get their act together. Thanks, tglx