From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA09D1519B8 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 07:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743494323; cv=none; b=FAXy+KBvsHnIGmfDXd/Wpv5J1kwLgQJS8XeaFzChifsIGJcMbNueiYo+8T7cctZD4omgxGnVFCsxXR0O+vDlQorKW1yjiZXrxYcus7HCoQXKWx5YJcpCGWTQK7Gx2ukCZHT7PdjOnXtuK5dEipGgvTw2SyFfOBdX2v9DL70Tqj0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743494323; c=relaxed/simple; bh=REaIDa2/g+mb0jn6qNUOAEAxiQQ4g/SSmeUfYmyFIJU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LFaWwK9XJkH+UGOyyMHmjCUUxm639CGjKXw4LuFIp5PVMVBjVFuMZdXHdDyJy77uYjxvrj/wXCrj/69bnsAglQDPKQdkChexzUYXkuxhrRINKPp5TctQ+IxQ9OcCwe/W5dNZxjZeNE5Qg8+/dM70Te7wDbjfOQYZbjG/09XLvhk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=prt4HXO+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="prt4HXO+" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55E8AC4CEE4; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 07:58:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1743494323; bh=REaIDa2/g+mb0jn6qNUOAEAxiQQ4g/SSmeUfYmyFIJU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=prt4HXO+5GhCqI8fIDPpA5WY/AwPqEauKg83JRluUQ/c3/Sh5QQEzL7rwhDJav2jf XX/60CM2cPaRfI1pw5Ulnm0nmOwO/SImvp5FugiYwslPKdk8fvB2oPNz/UgrPOgdjZ 8OfgnSQdbDuN3BhwxDMCUN7Gxrtux99Vpwk/CUsxM/Ff6NLvNLuftK8/IBiIhCxU+Q CThJjjEgwd0aCDmA8Y2mLjhiEX8UNJrzHGiCKvnrm5CKDNUnadFwEl6gdIZe1C/Ud6 mc/dfDyvaEm2Fm8JBAWMD+V1t1MBhjMRMtpopBM4bfzlgPwwrUM1pV0CxMfpheD1jL zuO4jN0q1yitA== Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 09:58:38 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: Borislav Petkov , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Tiezhu Yang Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] objtool fixes and updates Message-ID: References: <20250329153242.GAZ-gSmu8qiXufR04k@fat_crate.local> <20250330231355.GFZ-nQM6NPcC7nWl__@fat_crate.local> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: * Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 06:39:51PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 01:13:55AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 03:19:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 08:33, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Btw, test bot complains: > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/202503292202.Sge7ZEUc-lkp@intel.com > > > > > > > > That's not a very helpful error message > > > > > > I found this: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/202503280703.OARM8SrY-lkp@intel.com > > > > > > which looks like the original report. > > > > > > Looks unsolved yet... > > > > The "new" warning is just the "skipping duplicate warning", which was > > already merged with commit 0a7fb6f07e3a ("objtool: Increase per-function > > WARN_FUNC() rate limit"). So none of the warnings are specific to this > > pull request. > > > > Tiezhu, can you please look at this warning? > > > > arch/loongarch/kernel/traps.o: warning: objtool: show_stack+0xe0: stack state mismatch: reg1[22]=-1+0 reg2[22]=-2-160 > > arch/loongarch/kernel/traps.o: warning: objtool: show_stack+0xe0: stack state mismatch: reg1[23]=-1+0 reg2[23]=-2-152 > > Here's a fix. Will post a real fix soon, along with another pile of > fixes. And just to make it clear, these objtool warnings were not a new regression, they were introduced more than a year ago, via: cb8a2ef0848c ("LoongArch: Add ORC stack unwinder support") So, to bring this thread to a conclusion, I think by getting rid of the summary warning line: c5610071a69d ("Revert "objtool: Increase per-function WARN_FUNC() rate limit"") ... the CI test-bots ought to be back to the v6.14 baseline even taking such false positives into account. I'll send the updated objtool/urgent tree to Linus later today, unless some last-minute problem pops up. Thanks, Ingo