From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.10]) (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 E88602F0C6B; Sat, 20 Dec 2025 19:38:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766259528; cv=none; b=TkO7OFXM0qAYdhuzCCBz33cXOBGtDB2qZcoXkSGbJke9Nc7p32SitUeJL8aWM9DFt4Y9WG4B5foNaJJx72obphVdOW53vIKxSAv+HH8KL62cuT5C8H1NWcjuQovBMf++jVm4nY1lKaIT5G9F35IzOkuGK32GIXmb4CaCcdhK6+g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766259528; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1GWReUGplOwGxcytr02vQVe2hYUxmjhJo00fyQ3IrEk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YK4xzVBTfeB1mODjotZ+IpJGRe/INFVPYRPwwsUTmzke0m0hN8bhlJ8coZL228HXQqm9pJLv3u6Br2mKk7K7CPt09CtlZ8AutrPvzjo0FQBVd4D6CVONnb/N4dz3/9jXJjnXBBoe+lf63NzcvUdKvyEZYCyxoFns+VCBXNT7gz8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=OA5yoWfK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="OA5yoWfK" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1766259526; x=1797795526; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=1GWReUGplOwGxcytr02vQVe2hYUxmjhJo00fyQ3IrEk=; b=OA5yoWfKMA/E2cMIuvC0PpipRmyVsH6rY4ErUclNEXVWshF/3NDpH7Md x2O5Hs5lIKUIbcK75TE+GwGQkFXi6wWkDWysA1A9DpoP2etDK7Blmusvz rz6UCF5ggk1AOaRx6FLsu8KTM6si5FihsNCTCQP5MPyxfryknirZKKrJw dXzbSHdU+Olt6SeMeCsYBNShj1iV2bHTnonFHbXCuKsE9Damy5fJy+j8v siO64jIPHdXsN/EJipMyYyUoiI6mGMCQmunNLG0HlXQT54C1bZqDt296Y DXIvfbImdrRowfOUfh69rdWvxHjNnlTV8uKZVvzV4k39yR2vnS9o5SB/5 Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: aUEv8WVpTtyy1kVW5BbIDA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: vxuzAiN+Rx6A0DLmo1DGQw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11648"; a="85599363" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,164,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="85599363" Received: from orviesa009.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.149]) by orvoesa102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Dec 2025 11:38:46 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 4UvXX/ZDQCemeNPyxn8PdA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: n4ZP9A7dTKKU/y9jQj5Wjw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,164,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="198907422" Received: from lkp-server01.sh.intel.com (HELO 0d09efa1b85f) ([10.239.97.150]) by orviesa009.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2025 11:38:42 -0800 Received: from kbuild by 0d09efa1b85f with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vX2ml-0000000054r-2AIJ; Sat, 20 Dec 2025 19:38:39 +0000 Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 03:38:24 +0800 From: kernel test robot To: Jiri Olsa , Steven Rostedt , Florent Revest , Mark Rutland 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 , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Menglong Dong , Song Liu Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 bpf-next 9/9] bpf,x86: Use single ftrace_ops for direct calls Message-ID: <202512210241.4wuAmCHu-lkp@intel.com> References: <20251215211402.353056-10-jolsa@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 | 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