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 B282C17DFE7; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:21:58 +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=1760487718; cv=none; b=tsrKmj/o0CuiTgnR/p+dyJqqLez+lg2nnLX5kyyeLLAdem+W5frfhXSjuS4tkyxMeinJVLK37xnShO/u3xxdbpZRLQruQIPx1XTyLW0Jf7GoyK/i88Us81IzDLYhJ8uRucjjex6FqhqlFs+pFUVL/8dKALQq/qP2uliG9lYOTbM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760487718; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oLFIibXnPFOJz0MzV3NAkJL/mBUsPSV9HGDX9rhCWkM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ub9+91PACcPO5M9I1YOx5uFk0Wu13S6ERqe9OOKaiNX2UquGPuRA7fbsNu/kV019PhXzj1SJTqViESpeK5oGqUwhdLe/G7iCbdEd1YwpQJIPqYuN0xRCwayB/ebc9xyMAPMHpJDVrBda4irGogbkJn4a5uaH381nEf/YKx4XUEw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=uoEDLvVM; 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="uoEDLvVM" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A30DC4CEE7; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:21:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1760487718; bh=oLFIibXnPFOJz0MzV3NAkJL/mBUsPSV9HGDX9rhCWkM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=uoEDLvVMBYvbxbaqRExO4mBuOXW8xK+xBsM3YpN8BU1lvBX4p3ZAdfzt2L3+iF0GN WG1/B5BcjO6G5oQtvfsi/xChcW18K/a54r1fdPVQsmPwbbPFnAXEa4+7w5bzq4flhf 6VHS/tdoIl0wngQjxhoS3nTFA8kCFfDp3DcveH/+FyeZcZo2KjS0k+8Ypk97Xtmuun 8K2iC6fX/3DXfiRfPJuvJbT3N1ZJXjBgUU19rx60Zsxgh/AO9zi2sWjzPrju9lComF gSaIX68xorVOyC+xLeGk3YYnNWC6eRkJurprqsPEMD5vPVxi8cCVp0VHEmEfLgQjp+ O1BtSRYMnbkCg== Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 17:21:54 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Vishal Chourasia Cc: Christophe Leroy , maddy@linux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, "llvm@lists.linux.dev" Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/powerpc: Remove .interp section in vmlinux Message-ID: <20251015002154.GA2300901@ax162> References: <20251013040148.560439-1-vishalc@linux.ibm.com> <2b4a3215-1620-40c9-a00c-ca833ebbb7b6@csgroup.eu> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Hi Vishal, On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 12:57:00PM +0530, Vishal Chourasia wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 08:46:48AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > +CLANG ppl > > > > Hi, > > > > Le 13/10/2025 à 06:01, Vishal Chourasia a écrit : > > > While debugging a ppc64le QEMU guest on an x86_64 host, I observed GDB crashes > > > when attempting to attach to the remote target: > > > > > > (gdb) target remote :1234 > > > > > > Investigation revealed that cross-compiling the Linux kernel for ppc64le on an > > > x86_64 host using Clang produces a vmlinux binary containing an empty .interp > > > section. This empty .interp section is responsible for the GDB crashes. > > > > Which version of CLANG is it ? > (i) ❯ clang --version > clang version 21.0.0git (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git a80bccc6847be104948f46d313f03ac6b9ccb292) > > > > > > > > > This issue does not occur when: > > > - Building for ppc64le target using GCC on x86_64 host > > > - Building for ppc64le target using Clang on ppc64le host > > > > Is it the same CLANG version ? > # clang --version > clang version 22.0.0git (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 2f755c543ab357bd83235592fcee37fa391cdd9d) > > > > > > - Building for ppc64le target using GCC on ppc64le host > > > > > > For details refer [1] > > > > > > [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33481 In this bug report, you mention using LLVM=1. Does the issue happen if you use GNU ld (ld.bfd) via LD (i.e., LD=powerpc64le-linux-gnu-ld or equivalent) over ld.lld from LLVM=1? This sounds more likely to be a linker difference rather than a compiler difference. Cheers, Nathan