From: Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@kernel.org>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
"Eduard Zingerman" <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
"Song Liu" <song@kernel.org>,
"Yonghong Song" <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
"KP Singh" <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
"Stanislav Fomichev" <sdf@fomichev.me>,
"Hao Luo" <haoluo@google.com>, "Jiri Olsa" <jolsa@kernel.org>,
"Mykola Lysenko" <mykolal@fb.com>,
"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>, "Björn Töpel" <bjorn@kernel.org>,
"Magnus Karlsson" <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>,
"Maciej Fijalkowski" <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>,
"Jonathan Lemon" <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Yan Zhai" <yan@cloudflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 5/8] selftests/bpf: Fix order-of-include compile errors in lwt_reroute.c
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:56:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZqRv2uXUk21uj7Gt@kodidev-ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZO_G59KS4iBj0XVasKYidFMeBJ4wTrSP+J28HNFgdgmw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 01:18:04PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 3:39 AM Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@gmail.com>
> >
> > Fix redefinition errors seen compiling lwt_reroute.c for mips64el/musl-libc
> > by adjusting the order of includes in lwt_helpers.h. The ordering required
> > is:
> > <net/if.h> --> <arpa/inet.h> (from "test_progs.h") --> <linux/icmp.h>.
> >
> > Because of the complexity and large number of includes, ordering appears to
> > be fragile however. Previously, with "test_progs.h" at the end of this
> > sequence, compiling with GCC 12.3 for mips64el/musl-libc yields errors:
> >
> > In file included from .../include/arpa/inet.h:9,
> > from ./test_progs.h:18,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h:11,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_reroute.c:52:
> > .../include/netinet/in.h:23:8: error: redefinition of 'struct in6_addr'
> > 23 | struct in6_addr {
> > | ^~~~~~~~
> > In file included from .../include/linux/icmp.h:24,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h:9:
> > .../include/linux/in6.h:33:8: note: originally defined here
> > 33 | struct in6_addr {
> > | ^~~~~~~~
> > .../include/netinet/in.h:34:8: error: redefinition of 'struct sockaddr_in6'
> > 34 | struct sockaddr_in6 {
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > .../include/linux/in6.h:50:8: note: originally defined here
> > 50 | struct sockaddr_in6 {
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > .../include/netinet/in.h:42:8: error: redefinition of 'struct ipv6_mreq'
> > 42 | struct ipv6_mreq {
> > | ^~~~~~~~~
> > .../include/linux/in6.h:60:8: note: originally defined here
> > 60 | struct ipv6_mreq {
> > | ^~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Similarly, with "test_progs.h" at the beginning of this sequence, compiling
> > with GCC 12.3 for x86_64 using glibc would fail like this:
> >
> > In file included from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h:8,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_reroute.c:52:
> > /usr/include/linux/if.h:83:9: error: redeclaration of enumerator ‘IFF_UP’
> > 83 | IFF_UP = 1<<0, /* sysfs */
> > | ^~~~~~
> > /usr/include/net/if.h:44:5: note: previous definition of ‘IFF_UP’ with type ‘enum <anonymous>’
> > 44 | IFF_UP = 0x1, /* Interface is up. */
> > | ^~~~~~
> > /usr/include/linux/if.h:84:9: error: redeclaration of enumerator ‘IFF_BROADCAST’
> > 84 | IFF_BROADCAST = 1<<1, /* __volatile__ */
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > /usr/include/net/if.h:46:5: note: previous definition of ‘IFF_BROADCAST’ with type ‘enum <anonymous>’
> > 46 | IFF_BROADCAST = 0x2, /* Broadcast address valid. */
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ...
> >
> > In file included from /usr/include/linux/icmp.h:23,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h:10,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_reroute.c:52:
> > /usr/include/linux/if.h:194:8: error: redefinition of ‘struct ifmap’
> > 194 | struct ifmap {
> > | ^~~~~
> > In file included from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h:8,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_reroute.c:52:
> > /usr/include/net/if.h:111:8: note: originally defined here
> > 111 | struct ifmap
> > | ^~~~~
> > In file included from /usr/include/linux/icmp.h:23,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h:10,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_reroute.c:52:
> > /usr/include/linux/if.h:232:8: error: redefinition of ‘struct ifreq’
> > 232 | struct ifreq {
> > | ^~~~~
> > In file included from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h:8,
> > from tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_reroute.c:52:
> > /usr/include/net/if.h:126:8: note: originally defined here
> > 126 | struct ifreq
> > | ^~~~~
> >
> > Fixes: 43a7c3ef8a15 ("selftests/bpf: Add lwt_xmit tests for BPF_REDIRECT")
> > Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h
> > index fb1eb8c67361..8e5e28af03c5 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_helpers.h
> > @@ -6,10 +6,9 @@
> > #include <time.h>
> > #include <net/if.h>
> > #include <linux/if_tun.h>
> > +#include "test_progs.h" /* between <net/if.h> and <linux/icmp.h> or errors */
>
> Now we'll be papering over the real issue. Can you see if you can
> untangle this mess and ensure that we consistently use either net/if.h
> or linux/if.h headers?
>
Well, "untangle this mess" is certainly the right phrase, so I'll give it
another go and see what I can find.
> pw-bot: cr
>
> > #include <linux/icmp.h>
> >
> > -#include "test_progs.h"
> > -
> > #define log_err(MSG, ...) \
> > fprintf(stderr, "(%s:%d: errno: %s) " MSG "\n", \
> > __FILE__, __LINE__, strerror(errno), ##__VA_ARGS__)
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-27 3:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-25 10:35 [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/8] selftests/bpf: Improve libc portability / musl support (part 2) Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/8] selftests/bpf: Use portable POSIX basename() Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 2/8] selftests/bpf: Fix arg parsing in veristat, test_progs Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 20:09 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-07-27 3:34 ` Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/8] selftests/bpf: Fix error compiling test_lru_map.c Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 4/8] selftests/bpf: Fix C++ compile error from missing _Bool type Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 5/8] selftests/bpf: Fix order-of-include compile errors in lwt_reroute.c Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 20:18 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-07-27 3:56 ` Tony Ambardar [this message]
2024-07-25 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 6/8] selftests/bpf: Fix compile if backtrace support missing in libc Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 20:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-07-27 3:48 ` Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 17:50 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-07-25 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 7/8] selftests/bpf: Fix using stdout, stderr as struct field names Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 20:27 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-07-27 4:22 ` Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 8:48 ` Tony Ambardar
2024-07-25 10:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 8/8] selftests/bpf: Fix error compiling tc_redirect.c with musl libc Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 9:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/8] selftests/bpf: Improve libc portability / musl support (part 2) Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 9:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/8] selftests/bpf: Use portable POSIX basename() Tony Ambardar
2024-07-30 20:50 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2024-07-29 9:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/8] selftests/bpf: Fix arg parsing in veristat, test_progs Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 9:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/8] selftests/bpf: Fix error compiling test_lru_map.c Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 9:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/8] selftests/bpf: Fix C++ compile error from missing _Bool type Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 9:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/8] selftests/bpf: Fix redefinition errors compiling lwt_reroute.c Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 9:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 6/8] selftests/bpf: Fix compile if backtrace support missing in libc Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 9:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/8] selftests/bpf: Fix using stdout, stderr as struct field names Tony Ambardar
2024-07-29 9:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 8/8] selftests/bpf: Fix error compiling tc_redirect.c with musl libc Tony Ambardar
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=ZqRv2uXUk21uj7Gt@kodidev-ubuntu \
--to=tony.ambardar@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com \
--cc=magnus.karlsson@intel.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mykolal@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yan@cloudflare.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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