Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 24 [build failure on arm64]

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 24 [build failure on arm64]

[Jon Hunter]

On 24/06/2020 11:55, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 05:08:56PM +0800, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
>> +Will Deacon,
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> There's a build failure on arm64:
>>
>>   CALL    scripts/atomic/check-atomics.sh
>>   CALL    scripts/checksyscalls.sh
>>   LD      arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vdso.so.dbg
>> ld: unrecognized option '--no-eh-frame-hdr'
>> ld: use the --help option for usage information
>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile:64: recipe for target
>> 'arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vdso.so.dbg' failed
>> make[1]: *** [arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vdso.so.dbg] Error 1
>> arch/arm64/Makefile:175: recipe for target 'vdso_prepare' failed
>> make: *** [vdso_prepare] Error 2
>>
>> GCC version is followed:
>> gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.12) 5.4.0 20160609
>>
>> It seems caused by
>> 87676cfca141 arm64: vdso: Disable dwarf unwinding through the sigreturn
>> trampoline
> 
> Urgh, binutils quality strikes again. If you're able to reproduce locally,
> can you try the diff below, please? All the linkers I have kicking around
> seem to support --no-eh-frame-hdr.
> 
> Will
> 
> --->8
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile
> index 1e5a940532da..97d3d3632093 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile
> @@ -23,8 +23,9 @@ btildflags-$(CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL) += -z force-bti
>  # potential future proofing if we end up with internal calls to the exported
>  # routines, as x86 does (see 6f121e548f83 ("x86, vdso: Reimplement vdso.so
>  # preparation in build-time C")).
> -ldflags-y := -shared -nostdlib -soname=linux-vdso.so.1 --hash-style=sysv \
> -               -Bsymbolic --no-eh-frame-hdr --build-id -n $(btildflags-y) -T
> +ldflags-y := -shared -nostdlib -soname=linux-vdso.so.1 --hash-style=sysv       \
> +            -Bsymbolic $(call ld-option, --no-eh-frame-hdr) --build-id -n      \
> +            $(btildflags-y) -T
>  
>  ccflags-y := -fno-common -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector -ffixed-x18
>  ccflags-y += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING
> 


I am seeing the same build failure and the above does fix it for me.

Thanks
Jon

-- 
nvpublic

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 24 [build failure on arm64]

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 24/06/2020 11:55, Will Deacon wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile
> > index 1e5a940532da..97d3d3632093 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile
> > @@ -23,8 +23,9 @@ btildflags-$(CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL) += -z force-bti
> >  # potential future proofing if we end up with internal calls to the exported
> >  # routines, as x86 does (see 6f121e548f83 ("x86, vdso: Reimplement vdso.so
> >  # preparation in build-time C")).
> > -ldflags-y := -shared -nostdlib -soname=linux-vdso.so.1 --hash-style=sysv \
> > -               -Bsymbolic --no-eh-frame-hdr --build-id -n $(btildflags-y) -T
> > +ldflags-y := -shared -nostdlib -soname=linux-vdso.so.1 --hash-style=sysv       \
> > +            -Bsymbolic $(call ld-option, --no-eh-frame-hdr) --build-id -n      \
> > +            $(btildflags-y) -T
> >  
> >  ccflags-y := -fno-common -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector -ffixed-x18
> >  ccflags-y += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING
> > 
> 
> 
> I am seeing the same build failure and the above does fix it for me.

Cheers, Jon. I'll get this into -next with your Tested-by.

Will

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 24 [build failure on arm64]

[Jon Hunter]

On 24/06/2020 13:22, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 24/06/2020 11:55, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile
>>> index 1e5a940532da..97d3d3632093 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile
>>> @@ -23,8 +23,9 @@ btildflags-$(CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL) += -z force-bti
>>>  # potential future proofing if we end up with internal calls to the exported
>>>  # routines, as x86 does (see 6f121e548f83 ("x86, vdso: Reimplement vdso.so
>>>  # preparation in build-time C")).
>>> -ldflags-y := -shared -nostdlib -soname=linux-vdso.so.1 --hash-style=sysv \
>>> -               -Bsymbolic --no-eh-frame-hdr --build-id -n $(btildflags-y) -T
>>> +ldflags-y := -shared -nostdlib -soname=linux-vdso.so.1 --hash-style=sysv       \
>>> +            -Bsymbolic $(call ld-option, --no-eh-frame-hdr) --build-id -n      \
>>> +            $(btildflags-y) -T
>>>  
>>>  ccflags-y := -fno-common -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector -ffixed-x18
>>>  ccflags-y += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING
>>>
>>
>>
>> I am seeing the same build failure and the above does fix it for me.
> 
> Cheers, Jon. I'll get this into -next with your Tested-by.

Thanks, that will be great.

Jon

-- 
nvpublic