From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] objtool: Add option to fail build on vmlinux warnings
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 15:19:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241219221913.GA1259354@ax162> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241219010054.pxcnejgkvy3g744k@jpoimboe>
Hi Josh,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 05:00:54PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
...
> - obscure toolchain bugs in certain compiler versions which do weird
> things with control flow. some of these bugs break the kernel, some
> don't.
>
> Problem is, it usually falls on the objtool maintainers to figure out
> the root of the problem and the resolution, neither of which is
> necessarily straightforward, especially the latter. There's only two of
> us maintainers at the moment, with limited bandwidth.
>
> So yes, it *should* always fail the build. But unless we get more
> maintainer bandwidth, I don't think we're ready for that.
>
> We might end up being able to make CONFIG_OBJTOOL_WERROR=y the default,
> and then just require broken features to depend on
> CONFIG_OBJTOOL_WERROR=n. And then print a big fat warning message at
> build and/or runtime in the case of warnings.
>
> We also might need to add some features, like a way to mark certain
> compiler versions as bad, or a way to silence objtool warnings for
> certain known harmless cases, or improve the specificity and usefulness
> of certain vague warnings.
>
> But as a first step I'll planning on just throwing these patches on a
> robot-monitored branch with CONFIG_OBJTOOL_WERROR=y over the holidays to
> see how bad the damage is.
For the record, I plan to monitor these reports for LLVM and try to
investigate and triage all other known objtool warnings for LLVM after
the holidays to try and prepare for this. I felt blind sided by the
compiler -Werror change so I'd rather not go through that again :) one
reason I would like to be objtool clean is to catch changed compiler
behavior quicker, as I tend to notice it is easier to get problems
addressed when the problem is reported as close as possible to the
original change.
I do agree with you that figuring our the root problem and resolution to
some of these warnings is not always the easiest, especially when they
are on the toolchain side, so I have often kicked the can down the road.
I know there is some documentation in objtool.txt around various
warnings, is that pretty up to date/accurate? Are there any other
resources I could look at to help with this work? I know Arnd just
recently fixed a set [1] that I saw in our builds as well due to a bare
unreachable(), which I think tend to hurt Clang more than GCC but maybe
I am imagining things there.
Some objtool reports get sent to only llvm@lists.linux.dev when clang is
involved (due to a historical filter IIRC, I cannot find the original
request), so you may want to glance at [2] to see if anything new pops
up.
[1]: https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/cff865c700711ecc3824b2dfe181637f3ed23c80
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/llvm/?q=objtool+f:lkp@intel.com
Cheers,
Nathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-19 22:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-18 14:58 [PATCH v2 0/2] objtool: Add option to fail build on vmlinux warnings Brendan Jackman
2024-12-18 14:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] objtool: Add --Werror Brendan Jackman
2024-12-18 14:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] kbuild: Add option to fail build on vmlinux objtool issues Brendan Jackman
2024-12-18 19:04 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-12-19 10:18 ` Brendan Jackman
2024-12-19 0:06 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] objtool: Add option to fail build on vmlinux warnings Andrew Morton
2024-12-19 1:00 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-12-19 22:19 ` Nathan Chancellor [this message]
2024-12-19 22:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-12-20 11:30 ` Brendan Jackman
2024-12-20 20:10 ` Nathan Chancellor
2024-12-19 23:01 ` Nick Desaulniers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20241219221913.GA1259354@ax162 \
--to=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas@fjasle.eu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox