From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] um: Avoid longjmp/setjmp symbol clashes with libpthread.a From: Florian Fainelli References: <20170524003232.14319-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <9f58b41d-ebe4-62a6-1aa4-e9222372ce86@gmail.com> Message-ID: <408132c9-6d55-7cba-e09a-f532d7fb9c6f@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 12:38:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9f58b41d-ebe4-62a6-1aa4-e9222372ce86@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Weinberger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jeff Dike , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , "open list:USER-MODE LINUX (UML)" , "open list:USER-MODE LINUX (UML)" List-ID: On 05/24/2017 09:19 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 05/24/2017 12:02 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Florian, >> >> Am 24.05.2017 um 02:32 schrieb Florian Fainelli: >>> Building a statically linked UML kernel on a Centos 6.9 host resulted in >>> the following linking failure (GCC 4.4, glibc-2.12): >>> >>> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.4.7/../../../../lib64/libpthread.a(libpthread.o): >>> In function `siglongjmp': >>> (.text+0x8490): multiple definition of `longjmp' >>> arch/x86/um/built-in.o:/local/users/fainelli/openwrt/trunk/build_dir/target-x86_64_musl/linux-uml/linux-4.4.69/arch/x86/um/setjmp_64.S:44: >>> first defined here >>> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.4.7/../../../../lib64/libpthread.a(libpthread.o): >>> In function `sem_open': >>> (.text+0x77cd): warning: the use of `mktemp' is dangerous, better use >>> `mkstemp' >>> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status >>> make[4]: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 >>> >>> Adopt a solution similar to the one done for vmap where we define >>> longjmp/setjmp to be kernel_longjmp/setjmp. In the process, make sure we >>> do rename the functions in arch/x86/um/setjmp_*.S accordingly. >> >> What is not so clear to me, why are you facing this build issue and other users, including me, >> not? > > Presumably because we are not using the same glibc version? The one I > have installed on this machine is glibc-2.12, do you want me to attach a > copy of it? Richard, what do we do with this? -- Florian