linux-kernel - Re: make[5]: *** No rule to make target 'scripts/module.lds', needed by 'tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf

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:   Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:47:59 +0100
From:   Sergei Trofimovich <slyich@...il.com>
To:     kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc:     oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: make[5]: *** No rule to make target 'scripts/module.lds',
 needed by 'tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.ko'.

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 05:24:07 +0800
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> wrote:

> Hi Sergei,
> 
> First bad commit (maybe != root cause):
> 
> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> head:   a27648c742104a833a01c54becc24429898d85bf
> commit: 82880283d7fcd0a1d20964a56d6d1a5cc0df0713 objtool: Fix truncated string warning
> date:   1 year, 4 months ago
> compiler: gcc-12 (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
> reproduce:
>         # https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=82880283d7fcd0a1d20964a56d6d1a5cc0df0713
>         git remote add linus https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>         git fetch --no-tags linus master
>         git checkout 82880283d7fcd0a1d20964a56d6d1a5cc0df0713
>         make W=1 O=/tmp/kselftest headers
>         make W=1 O=/tmp/kselftest -C tools/testing/selftests
>         make W=1 O=/tmp/kselftest -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf
> 
> 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 <lkp@...el.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202306080543.EJWQZYkE-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> 
> >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c:19:1: warning: no previous prototype for 'bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc' [-Wmissing-prototypes]  
>       19 | bpf_testmod_test_mod_kfunc(int i)
>          | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c:24:14: warning: no previous prototype for 'bpf_testmod_loop_test' [-Wmissing-prototypes]  
>       24 | noinline int bpf_testmod_loop_test(int n)
>          |              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c:36:30: warning: no previous prototype for 'bpf_testmod_return_ptr' [-Wmissing-prototypes]  
>       36 | __weak noinline struct file *bpf_testmod_return_ptr(int arg)
>          |                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c:53:1: warning: no previous prototype for 'bpf_testmod_test_read' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>       53 | bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
>          | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c:89:1: warning: no previous prototype for 'bpf_testmod_test_write' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>       89 | bpf_testmod_test_write(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
>          | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> --
> >> make[5]: *** No rule to make target 'scripts/module.lds', needed by 'tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.ko'.  
>    make[5]: Target '__modfinal' not remade because of errors.

This failure looks unrelated to the commit it points to.

lkp@, can you have a look at your bisection rules in a bit
more of detail? There are at least 2 problems with this report:

1. the commit is 1.5 years old, it's unlikely you care about that old material
2. build failure might be an indication of a flaky build failure (or outright
   stale build tree)

Both points have a chance of decreasing signal value from 0-DAY CI.

Thanks!

-- 

  Sergei