From: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Florent Revest <revest@google.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 bpf-next 9/9] bpf,x86: Use single ftrace_ops for direct calls
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 03:38:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202512210241.4wuAmCHu-lkp@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251215211402.353056-10-jolsa@kernel.org>
Hi Jiri,
kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
[auto build test ERROR on bpf-next/master]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Jiri-Olsa/ftrace-bpf-Remove-FTRACE_OPS_FL_JMP-ftrace_ops-flag/20251216-052916
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251215211402.353056-10-jolsa%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCHv5 bpf-next 9/9] bpf,x86: Use single ftrace_ops for direct calls
config: riscv-allmodconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251221/202512210241.4wuAmCHu-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 22.0.0git (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project b324c9f4fa112d61a553bf489b5f4f7ceea05ea8)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251221/202512210241.4wuAmCHu-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202512210241.4wuAmCHu-lkp@intel.com/
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:367:9: error: call to undeclared function 'direct_ops_del'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
367 | ret = direct_ops_del(tr, old_addr);
| ^
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:367:9: note: did you mean 'direct_ops_free'?
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:298:13: note: 'direct_ops_free' declared here
298 | static void direct_ops_free(struct bpf_trampoline *tr) { }
| ^
>> kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:381:9: error: call to undeclared function 'direct_ops_mod'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
381 | ret = direct_ops_mod(tr, new_addr, lock_direct_mutex);
| ^
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:381:9: note: did you mean 'direct_ops_free'?
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:298:13: note: 'direct_ops_free' declared here
298 | static void direct_ops_free(struct bpf_trampoline *tr) { }
| ^
>> kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:404:9: error: call to undeclared function 'direct_ops_add'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
404 | ret = direct_ops_add(tr, new_addr);
| ^
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:404:9: note: did you mean 'direct_ops_free'?
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:298:13: note: 'direct_ops_free' declared here
298 | static void direct_ops_free(struct bpf_trampoline *tr) { }
| ^
3 errors generated.
vim +/direct_ops_del +367 kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
360
361 static int unregister_fentry(struct bpf_trampoline *tr, u32 orig_flags,
362 void *old_addr)
363 {
364 int ret;
365
366 if (tr->func.ftrace_managed)
> 367 ret = direct_ops_del(tr, old_addr);
368 else
369 ret = bpf_trampoline_update_fentry(tr, orig_flags, old_addr, NULL);
370
371 return ret;
372 }
373
374 static int modify_fentry(struct bpf_trampoline *tr, u32 orig_flags,
375 void *old_addr, void *new_addr,
376 bool lock_direct_mutex)
377 {
378 int ret;
379
380 if (tr->func.ftrace_managed) {
> 381 ret = direct_ops_mod(tr, new_addr, lock_direct_mutex);
382 } else {
383 ret = bpf_trampoline_update_fentry(tr, orig_flags, old_addr,
384 new_addr);
385 }
386 return ret;
387 }
388
389 /* first time registering */
390 static int register_fentry(struct bpf_trampoline *tr, void *new_addr)
391 {
392 void *ip = tr->func.addr;
393 unsigned long faddr;
394 int ret;
395
396 faddr = ftrace_location((unsigned long)ip);
397 if (faddr) {
398 if (!tr->fops)
399 return -ENOTSUPP;
400 tr->func.ftrace_managed = true;
401 }
402
403 if (tr->func.ftrace_managed) {
> 404 ret = direct_ops_add(tr, new_addr);
405 } else {
406 ret = bpf_trampoline_update_fentry(tr, 0, NULL, new_addr);
407 }
408
409 return ret;
410 }
411
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-20 19:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <20251215211402.353056-10-jolsa@kernel.org>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202512210241.4wuAmCHu-lkp@intel.com \
--to=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
--cc=oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=revest@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox