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 lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 51759C35FFC for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ZMSlY5dBKz2yFJ; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:45:13 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1742903113; cv=none; b=V7bVT/sTGe6NoY6XT/+1t+OiKPJDlExGluNWPdCZAmQb5mrFz9MynTdiv3luQbxbfUk+Alh65bXhN/kq26GpM92p1DghBRxbQCd0BRlhuUrzq7zMewVFuPhM/H7QfJk0dmiH3x/EMoYzAGMHsvWJk4kF6kIPPbg996jq6yECwXReh/gX0s2S02yb+xIj3IJ4TSjmi0AtC/V7TfnWmgRmz9k85jGirCzCz5BOQBVantGYoaNen7UEx0+0gV7DB3HXtQX2ASXocM4TaejIsX0eRDDLU76OrSAO6KHVL+Njtpa0S7aOW4J41L79FT0pFudHP6bQa/jCyZNa8WfYVsweaA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1742903113; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=ZeSvWIeDWkZDUBR4rtlXsoPy9rqPVDRaaZ2ycwV8IUc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OGSPjm3347UXr2edyj2faN6dewRAbdWUxmRKJPeCpixt9rXmHZmi0BrE1N3Z8mwWdwMSOTYS4eA/6iSKKK1S9o1SQwAtOGukrUAjJPAvUrTg/S9nLrev/mbfPXiBmRnEqD4QdwTKXhXthFFr5YbLSJaACL0hllsYH5vhBWaSxoaDkM2QZzIXF10BDOGMgMNFJOO2yfkVf/bXF1oZriKRv9p4wzjC3FZSq/LWZdZFJLZMNGkN8JAEx2438XbBbnYjKncFRwTm+NWLQ5Ntp4N5Dbc0XtFBgFB5Gb5q37dk5ziPi65Sah0E1VuT5ccX3c9hKyJe8KMIh0D+21UARYk1Jw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=EVjLbNU/; dkim-atps=neutral; spf=pass (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=skb99@linux.ibm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=EVjLbNU/; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=skb99@linux.ibm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ZMSlX3kf4z2xS9 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:45:11 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0360072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 52P56dKK027910; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:45:06 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=ZeSvWIeDWkZDUBR4rtlXsoPy9rqPVD RaaZ2ycwV8IUc=; b=EVjLbNU/k5+hqrBMGzGH/Fx07OdHl42M4QPRgyplfcTT6J MwoJFMiFn5ij4vtQYKZws4avcfDpsg8HTGu+yk4smIpknNF1/LkS9KUAqwNixD79 ad7FOtrMtYWSfMK+0y/k+iBDcS6qO2SkUM7X6JDEdc0QPeNWVoTr+oIu2kRcRv28 DH0NIcG89cBtHwrkcT21EncIaY9Q921n7hd3XwjNstgoRdi+kOoqJidlt36eXkrq 6W2i1ELzPn0x3ZKkp92ZwW92S6D4xMHM8O766zh98f74mqdkawWrPoNExbZDg3KS b4KT6ZUcufkzDEdKg+dAFe6vpOlRQKkw/S04GkGA== Received: from ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dd.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.221]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 45kbjwvae5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:45:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 52PA0TZm009692; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:45:05 GMT Received: from smtprelay07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.229]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 45j9rkjy33-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:45:05 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.102]) by smtprelay07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 52PBj2hk35258764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:45:02 GMT Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C5120043; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:45:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D19320040; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:44:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.43.39.189]) by smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:44:58 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:14:55 +0530 From: Saket Kumar Bhaskar To: Quentin Monnet Cc: Venkat Rao Bagalkote , Hari Bathini , bpf , LKML , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, jkacur@redhat.com, lgoncalv@redhat.com, gmonaco@redhat.com, williams@redhat.com, tglozar@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org Subject: Re: [linux-next-20250324]/tool/bpf/bpftool fails to complie on linux-next-20250324 Message-ID: References: <5df6968a-2e5f-468e-b457-fc201535dd4c@linux.ibm.com> <8b0b2a41-203d-41f8-888d-2273afb877d0@qmon.net> X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Archive: , List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8b0b2a41-203d-41f8-888d-2273afb877d0@qmon.net> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 6J8TeICOWrWWtMDx4atpNlqvb8kZ_Apf X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 6J8TeICOWrWWtMDx4atpNlqvb8kZ_Apf X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1093,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2025-03-25_04,2025-03-25_02,2024-11-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2502280000 definitions=main-2503250080 On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:09:24AM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote: > 2025-03-25 16:02 UTC+0530 ~ Venkat Rao Bagalkote > > Greetings!!! > > > > > > bpftool fails to complie on linux-next-20250324 repo. > > > > > > Error: > > > > make: *** No rule to make target 'bpftool', needed by '/home/linux/ > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/tools/include/vmlinux.h'. Stop. > > make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs..... > > > Thanks! Would be great to have a bit more context on the error (and on > how to reproduce) for next time. Bpftool itself seems to compile fine, > the error shows that it's building it from the context of the selftests > that seems broken. > > Yes, selftest build for BPF fails. ## pwd /linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf # make -j 33 make: *** No rule to make target 'bpftool', needed by '/home/upstreamci/linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/tools/include/vmlinux.h'. Stop. make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > > Git bisect points to commit: 8a635c3856ddb74ed3fe7c856b271cdfeb65f293 as > > first bad commit. > > Thank you Venkat for the bisect! > > On a quick look, that commit introduced a definition for BPFTOOL in > tools/scripts/Makefile.include: > > diff --git a/tools/scripts/Makefile.include .../Makefile.include > index 0aa4005017c7..71bbe52721b3 100644 > --- a/tools/scripts/Makefile.include > +++ b/tools/scripts/Makefile.include > @@ -91,6 +91,9 @@ LLVM_CONFIG ?= llvm-config > LLVM_OBJCOPY ?= llvm-objcopy > LLVM_STRIP ?= llvm-strip > > +# Some tools require bpftool > +BPFTOOL ?= bpftool > + > ifeq ($(CC_NO_CLANG), 1) > EXTRA_WARNINGS += -Wstrict-aliasing=3 > > But several utilities or selftests under tools/ include > tools/scripts/Makefile.include _and_ use their own version of the > $(BPFTOOL) variable, often assigning only if unset, for example in > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile: > > BPFTOOL ?= $(DEFAULT_BPFTOOL) > > My guess is that the new definition from Makefile.include overrides this > with simply "bpftool" as a value, and the Makefile fails to build it as > a result. > > If I guessed correctly, one workaround would be to rename the variable > in Makefile.include (and in whatever Makefile now relies on it) into > something that is not used in the other Makefiles, for example > BPFTOOL_BINARY. > > Please copy the BPF mailing list on changes impacting BPF tooling (or > for BPF-related patchsets in general). > > Thanks, > Quentin Yes you are right that the new definition from Makefile.include overrides this with simply "bpftool" as a value, and the Makefile in bpf selftest fails to build it as a result. But the main cause is that it is not able to locate the bpftool binary. So, is it good idea to both rename this variable in Makefile.include and use: BPFTOOL ?= /usr/sbin/bpftool This is the link to patch that is impacting: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250218145859.27762-3-tglozar@redhat.com/ Thanks, Saket