netdev - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the bpf-next tree

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]

Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:12:48 +0200
From:   Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the bpf-next tree

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 8:51 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 08:25:22AM +0200, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 8:18 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 07:55:30AM +0200, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:59 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc perf)
> > > > > failed like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > In file included from xsk.c:32:
> > > > > libbpf_util.h:49:3: error: #warning Architecture missing native barrier functions in libbpf_util.h. [-Werror=cpp]
> > > > >  # warning Architecture missing native barrier functions in libbpf_util.h.
> > > > >    ^~~~~~~
> > > > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> > > > >
> > > > > Caused by commit
> > > > >
> > > > >   b7e3a28019c9 ("libbpf: remove dependency on barrier.h in xsk.h")
> > > > >
> > > > > I have applied the following patch for today ... please fix this.
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > > > > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:54:56 +1000
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] suppress warning in tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h
> > > > > index 172b707e007b..a54eb2cdbdd6 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h
> > > > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h
> > > > > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ do {                          \
> > > > >  # define libbpf_smp_mb() asm volatile("dmb ish" : : : "memory")
> > > > >  # define libbpf_smp_rwmb() libbpf_smp_mb()
> > > > >  #else
> > > > > -# warning Architecture missing native barrier functions in libbpf_util.h.
> > > > > +//# warning Architecture missing native barrier functions in libbpf_util.h.
> > > > >  # define libbpf_smp_rmb() __sync_synchronize()
> > > > >  # define libbpf_smp_wmb() __sync_synchronize()
> > > > >  # define libbpf_smp_mb() __sync_synchronize()
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.20.1
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Stephen Rothwell
> > > >
> > > > My apologies, I will fix this. I just have two questions first so I do
> > > > not mess things up.
> > > >
> > > > * I see my commit in bpf-next but not in bpf. As I submitted it
> > > > against bpf, what was the reason it was applied to bpf-next instead?
> > > > Unfortunately, I forgot to add "Fixes" tags to the commits, so was
> > > > this the reason? I view 4 out of 5 of these patches as bug fixes, the
> > > > last one being an optimization.
> > >
> > > new macros that users still have to learn how to use are hardly fixes.
> >
> > That is fair.
> >
> > > I can toss it out of bpf-next if it's easier.
> >
> > How about you toss it out of bpf-next, then I resubmit the first two
> > patches (the barrier fixes) to bpf and the last three (new macros,
> > etc.) to bpf-next? Would that make it easier for you?
>
> the easiest is to do a trivial patch for bpf-next,
> but if you insist on first two as fixes that is ok as well.

Will submit a trivial patch. Thanks for your quick answers and help.

/Magnus