linux-kernel - Re: [FIXED] Re: 5:11: in-kernel BTF is malformed

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 20:10:52 -0700
From:   Chris Murphy <lists@...orremedies.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Chris Murphy <lists@...orremedies.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, dwarves@...r.kernel.org,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Clang-Built-Linux ML <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
        Caroline Tice <cmtice@...gle.com>,
        Nick Clifton <nickc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [FIXED] Re: 5:11: in-kernel BTF is malformed

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 9:33 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> So I think that for the problems related to building the kernel with gcc
> 11 in Fedora Rawhide using the default that is now DWARF5, pahole 1.20
> is good to go and I'll tag it now.

dwarves-1.20-1.fc34.x86_64
libdwarves1-1.20-1.fc34.x86_64

Fixes both "failed to validate module [?????] BTF: -22" type errors,
and 'in-kernel BTF is malformed" with qemu-kvm and libvirt.

Is that expected? Or maybe the second issue was fixed by
gcc-11.0.0-0.18.fc34.x86_64 [(GCC) 11.0.0 20210130]? This is what I
get for changing more than one thing at once.

--
Chris Murphy