[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190516225013.nvhwqi5tfwtby6qb@treble>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 21:03:39 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Ivan Babrou <ivan@...udflare.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 4.19 and GCC 9
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:20:54PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > mm/slub.o: warning: objtool: init_cache_random_seq()+0x36: sibling
> > call from callable instruction with modified stack frame
> > mm/slub.o: warning: objtool: slab_out_of_memory()+0x3b: sibling call
> > from callable instruction with modified stack frame
> > mm/slub.o: warning: objtool: slab_pad_check.part.0()+0x7c: sibling
> > call from callable instruction with modified stack frame
> > mm/slub.o: warning: objtool: check_slab()+0x1c: sibling call from
> > callable instruction with modified stack frame
>
> AFAIK those are non-critical, i.e. stack traces may be wrong (or not),
> but it does not mean the generated kernel itself is wrong. CC'ing the
> objtool maintainers too.
I don't think I recognize those warnings. Do you also see them in the
upstream kernel?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists