netdev - Re: linux-next: runtime warnings 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]

Message-ID: <a5fafb40-0782-4b85-a9fd-7fda886dd70a@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:31:18 +0100
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov
	<ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf
	<bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel
	Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: runtime warnings after merge of the bpf-next tree

Dear All,

On 01.02.2024 04:55, Daniel Xu wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thanks for the report.
>
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 02:23:48PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
>> pseries_le_defconfig) produced these runtime warnings in my qemu boot
> I can't quite find that config in-tree. Mind giving me a pointer?
>
>> tests:
>>
>>    ipip: IPv4 and MPLS over IPv4 tunneling driver
>>    ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>    WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/bpf/btf.c:8131 register_btf_kfunc_id_set+0x68/0x74
>>    Modules linked in:
>>    CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc2-03380-gd0c0d80c1162 #2
>>    Hardware name: IBM pSeries (emulated by qemu) POWER8 (raw) 0x4d0200 0xf000004 of:SLOF,HEAD pSeries
>>    NIP:  c0000000003bfbfc LR: c00000000209ba3c CTR: c00000000209b9a4
>>    REGS: c0000000049bf960 TRAP: 0700   Not tainted  (6.8.0-rc2-03380-gd0c0d80c1162)
>>    MSR:  8000000002029033 <SF,VEC,EE,ME,IR,DR,RI,LE>  CR: 24000482  XER: 00000000
>>    CFAR: c0000000003bfbb0 IRQMASK: 0
>>    GPR00: c00000000209ba3c c0000000049bfc00 c0000000015c9900 000000000000001b
>>    GPR04: c0000000012bc980 000000000000019a 000000000000019a 0000000000000133
>>    GPR08: c000000002969900 0000000000000001 c000000002969900 c000000002969900
>>    GPR12: c00000000209b9a4 c000000002b60000 c0000000000110cc 0000000000000000
>>    GPR16: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
>>    GPR20: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 c0000000014cd250
>>    GPR24: c000000002003e6c c000000001582c78 000000000000018b c0000000020c1060
>>    GPR28: 0000000000000000 0000000000000007 c0000000020c10a8 c000000002968f80
>>    NIP [c0000000003bfbfc] register_btf_kfunc_id_set+0x68/0x74
>>    LR [c00000000209ba3c] cubictcp_register+0x98/0xc8
>>    Call Trace:
>>    [c0000000049bfc30] [c000000000010d58] do_one_initcall+0x80/0x2f8
>>    [c0000000049bfd00] [c000000002005aec] kernel_init_freeable+0x32c/0x520
>>    [c0000000049bfde0] [c0000000000110f8] kernel_init+0x34/0x25c
>>    [c0000000049bfe50] [c00000000000debc] ret_from_kernel_user_thread+0x14/0x1c
>>    --- interrupt: 0 at 0x0
>>    Code: 60420000 3d22ffc6 39290708 7d291a14 89290270 7d290774 79230020 4bfff8c0 60420000 e9240000 7d290074 7929d182 <0b090000> 3860ffea 4e800020 3c4c0121
>>    ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>    NET: Registered PF_INET6 protocol family
> [...]
>
>> Exposed (and maybe caused) by commit
>>
>>    6e7769e6419f ("bpf: treewide: Annotate BPF kfuncs in BTF")
>>
> My guess is the config does not enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF which
> causes compilation to use the dummy definitions for BTF_KFUNCS_START().
>
> I think there's probably a few ways to fix it. This untested diff should
> work if I am guessing correctly. There's probably a cleaner way to do
> this.  I'll take a closer look in the morning.

I've observed this issue while testing today's linux-next on ARM64 bit 
boards. The below patch fixes (or hides?) this warning. Feel free to add:

Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>


> diff --git a/include/linux/btf_ids.h b/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> index 0fe4f1cd1918..e24aabfe8ecc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> +++ b/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ BTF_SET8_END(name)
>   #define BTF_SET_END(name)
>   #define BTF_SET8_START(name) static struct btf_id_set8 __maybe_unused name = { 0 };
>   #define BTF_SET8_END(name)
> -#define BTF_KFUNCS_START(name) static struct btf_id_set8 __maybe_unused name = { 0 };
> +#define BTF_KFUNCS_START(name) static struct btf_id_set8 __maybe_unused name = { .flags = BTF_SET8_KFUNCS };
>   #define BTF_KFUNCS_END(name)
>
>   #endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF */
>
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland