lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:29:46 +0300 From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com> To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>, ys114321@...il.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] samples/bpf: Fix compilation issue in redirect dummy program On 31/08/2017 2:43 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 08/31/2017 01:27 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:16:39 +0300 >> Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com> wrote: >> >>> Fix compilation error below: >>> >>> $ make samples/bpf/ >>> >>> LLVM ERROR: 'xdp_redirect_dummy' label emitted multiple times to >>> assembly file >>> make[1]: *** [samples/bpf/xdp_redirect_kern.o] Error 1 >>> make: *** [samples/bpf/] Error 2 >>> >>> Fixes: 306da4e685b4 ("samples/bpf: xdp_redirect load XDP dummy prog >>> on TX device") >>> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com> >>> --- >> >> Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> > > Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> > >> What LLVM/clang version do you use? clang version 3.8.0 (tags/RELEASE_380/final) >> >> I don't see this compile error, and I have: >> $ clang --version >> clang version 3.9.1 (tags/RELEA > > I'm seeing the error as well with a fairly recent LLVM from git > tree (6.0.0git-2d810c2). > > Looks like the llvm error is triggered when section name and > the function name for XDP prog is the same. Changing either the > function or the section name right above resolves the issue. If > such error didn't trigger on older versions, people could be > using such naming scheme as done here, so seems to me like a > regression on LLVM side we might need to look at ... Agreed. > > In any case, patch here is fine, thanks! Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists