linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.10 000/809] 6.10.3-rc1 review

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+G9fYvDT-Ek263796cuaOLCPMDAC3Gu6OkG=dSAP9CfBPYU5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:37:10 +0530
From: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org, 
	patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, 
	jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, 
	srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org, allen.lkml@...il.com, 
	broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.10 000/809] 6.10.3-rc1 review

On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 21:22, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.10.3 release.
> There are 809 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Thu, 01 Aug 2024 15:14:54 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.10.3-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h


As others reported,

Following perf build warnings / errors noticed on stable-rc 6.10 for x86_64,
arm64, arm and i386 with gcc-13 toolchain.

Perf build regressions:
----
* arm, build
  - gcc-13-lkftconfig-perf
* arm64, build
  - gcc-13-lkftconfig-perf
* i386, build
  - gcc-13-lkftconfig-perf
* x86_64, build
  - gcc-13-lkftconfig-perf

Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>

Perf build logs:
-------------
tests/pmu.c: In function 'test__name_len':
tests/pmu.c:400:32: error: too few arguments to function
'pmu_name_len_no_suffix'
  400 |         TEST_ASSERT_VAL("cpu", pmu_name_len_no_suffix("cpu")
== strlen("cpu"));
      |                                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/tests.h:15:15: note: in definition of macro 'TEST_ASSERT_VAL'
   15 |         if (!(cond)) {
          \
      |               ^~~~
In file included from tools/perf/util/evsel.h:13,
                 from tools/perf/util/evlist.h:14,
                 from tests/pmu.c:2:
tools/perf/util/pmus.h:8:5: note: declared here
    8 | int pmu_name_len_no_suffix(const char *str, unsigned long *num);
      |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/pmu.c:401:33: error: too few arguments to function
'pmu_name_len_no_suffix'
  401 |         TEST_ASSERT_VAL("i915", pmu_name_len_no_suffix("i915")
== strlen("i915"));
      |                                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/tests.h:15:15: note: in definition of macro 'TEST_ASSERT_VAL'
   15 |         if (!(cond)) {
          \
      |               ^~~~
tools/perf/util/pmus.h:8:5: note: declared here
    8 | int pmu_name_len_no_suffix(const char *str, unsigned long *num);
      |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/pmu.c:402:36: error: too few arguments to function
'pmu_name_len_no_suffix'
  402 |         TEST_ASSERT_VAL("cpum_cf",
pmu_name_len_no_suffix("cpum_cf") == strlen("cpum_cf"));
      |                                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/tests.h:15:15: note: in definition of macro 'TEST_ASSERT_VAL'
   15 |         if (!(cond)) {
          \
      |               ^~~~
tools/perf/util/pmus.h:8:5: note: declared here
    8 | int pmu_name_len_no_suffix(const char *str, unsigned long *num);
      |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/pmu.c:405:33: error: too few arguments to function
'pmu_name_len_no_suffix'
  405 |
pmu_name_len_no_suffix(uncore_chas[i]) ==
      |                                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/tests.h:15:15: note: in definition of macro 'TEST_ASSERT_VAL'
   15 |         if (!(cond)) {
          \
      |               ^~~~
tools/perf/util/pmus.h:8:5: note: declared here
    8 | int pmu_name_len_no_suffix(const char *str, unsigned long *num);
      |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/pmu.c:410:33: error: too few arguments to function
'pmu_name_len_no_suffix'
  410 |                                 pmu_name_len_no_suffix(mrvl_ddrs[i]) ==
      |                                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/tests.h:15:15: note: in definition of macro 'TEST_ASSERT_VAL'
   15 |         if (!(cond)) {
          \
      |               ^~~~
tools/perf/util/pmus.h:8:5: note: declared here
    8 | int pmu_name_len_no_suffix(const char *str, unsigned long *num);
      |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/pmu.c: In function 'test__name_cmp':
tests/pmu.c:418:34: error: implicit declaration of function
'pmu_name_cmp'; did you mean 'test__name_cmp'?
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  418 |         TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL("cpu", pmu_name_cmp("cpu", "cpu"), 0);
      |                                  ^~~~~~~~~~~~
tests/tests.h:23:13: note: in definition of macro 'TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL'
   23 |         if (val != expected) {
          \
      |             ^~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors


--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org