* [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
@ 2024-02-22 6:42 kernel test robot
2024-02-22 17:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-02-23 10:03 ` Sumanth Korikkar
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2024-02-22 6:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Poimboeuf
Cc: oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, Heiko Carstens, Sumanth Korikkar
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git features
head: 4a5993287467d2d0401503256dc9d2690c7f2020
commit: 778666df60f0d96f215e33e27448de47a2207fb3 [97/98] s390: compile relocatable kernel without -fPIE
config: s390-randconfig-002-20231016 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
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@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> Unsupported relocation type: 21
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-02-22 6:42 [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21 kernel test robot
@ 2024-02-22 17:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-02-23 9:50 ` Yujie Liu
2024-02-23 10:03 ` Sumanth Korikkar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Josh Poimboeuf @ 2024-02-22 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel test robot
Cc: oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, Heiko Carstens, Sumanth Korikkar
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 02:42:01PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git features
> head: 4a5993287467d2d0401503256dc9d2690c7f2020
> commit: 778666df60f0d96f215e33e27448de47a2207fb3 [97/98] s390: compile relocatable kernel without -fPIE
> config: s390-randconfig-002-20231016 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>
> 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@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/
>
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> >> Unsupported relocation type: 21
This is R_390_GOTPCDBL, which I believe can be ignored by the relocs
tool since it's related to the GOT.
I'm not able to recreate with my s390 toolchain (12.2.0), but I suspect
the following fixes it:
diff --git a/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c b/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
index db8bcbf9d8f8..ad3773dc1f95 100644
--- a/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
+++ b/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
@@ -276,6 +276,7 @@ static int do_reloc(struct section *sec, Elf_Rel *rel)
case R_390_PC32DBL:
case R_390_PLT32DBL:
case R_390_GOTENT:
+ case R_390_GOTPCDBL:
break;
case R_390_64:
add_reloc(&relocs64, offset);
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-02-22 17:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
@ 2024-02-23 9:50 ` Yujie Liu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Yujie Liu @ 2024-02-23 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Poimboeuf
Cc: kernel test robot, oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, Heiko Carstens,
Sumanth Korikkar
Hi Josh,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 09:37:27AM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 02:42:01PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git features
> > head: 4a5993287467d2d0401503256dc9d2690c7f2020
> > commit: 778666df60f0d96f215e33e27448de47a2207fb3 [97/98] s390: compile relocatable kernel without -fPIE
> > config: s390-randconfig-002-20231016 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
> >
> > 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@intel.com>
> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/
> >
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > >> Unsupported relocation type: 21
>
> This is R_390_GOTPCDBL, which I believe can be ignored by the relocs
> tool since it's related to the GOT.
>
> I'm not able to recreate with my s390 toolchain (12.2.0), but I suspect
> the following fixes it:
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c b/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
> index db8bcbf9d8f8..ad3773dc1f95 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
> @@ -276,6 +276,7 @@ static int do_reloc(struct section *sec, Elf_Rel *rel)
> case R_390_PC32DBL:
> case R_390_PLT32DBL:
> case R_390_GOTENT:
> + case R_390_GOTPCDBL:
> break;
> case R_390_64:
> add_reloc(&relocs64, offset);
>
We tested the diff above. The "Unsupported relocation type: 21" error
goes away but another "Unsupported relocation type: 28" error appears.
Refer to arch/s390/include/asm/elf.h, seems R_390_GOTOFF64 also needs to
be taken care of.
The original error is as below, which can be reproduced by both gcc-12
and gcc-13 in our tests:
$ wget https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/config -O .config
$ s390-linux-gcc --version
s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
$ make ARCH=s390 CROSS_COMPILE=s390-linux- olddefconfig
$ make -j72 ARCH=s390 CROSS_COMPILE=s390-linux-
...
RELOCS arch/s390/boot/relocs.S
Unsupported relocation type: 21
make[2]: *** [arch/s390/boot/Makefile:118: arch/s390/boot/relocs.S] Error 1
make[2]: *** Deleting file 'arch/s390/boot/relocs.S'
make[1]: *** [arch/s390/Makefile:142: bzImage] Error 2
After adding "case R_390_GOTPCDBL:":
$ make -j72 ARCH=s390 CROSS_COMPILE=s390-linux-
...
RELOCS arch/s390/boot/relocs.S
Unsupported relocation type: 28
make[2]: *** [arch/s390/boot/Makefile:118: arch/s390/boot/relocs.S] Error 1
make[2]: *** Deleting file 'arch/s390/boot/relocs.S'
Not sure if R_390_GOTOFF64 can also be ignored as R_390_GOTPCDBL. We
tried this and the bzImage is successfully built:
$ make -j72 ARCH=s390 CROSS_COMPILE=s390-linux-
HOSTCC arch/s390/tools/relocs
CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
RELOCS arch/s390/boot/relocs.S
AS arch/s390/boot/relocs.o
LD arch/s390/boot/vmlinux.syms
DUMPSYMS arch/s390/boot/vmlinux.syms
OBJCOPY arch/s390/boot/syms.o
LD arch/s390/boot/vmlinux
SECTCMP .boot.data
SECTCMP .boot.preserved.data
OBJCOPY arch/s390/boot/bzImage
This is a randconfig build test, and issue can be fixed by ignoring both
R_390_GOTPCDBL and R_390_GOTOFF64, but not sure if this is a complete
fix for build tests on all kinds of configs.
Seems there are several other GOT related constants defined in
arch/s390/include/asm/elf.h. Could you help check if there may be
other ones to be handled together?
Thanks,
Yujie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-02-22 6:42 [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21 kernel test robot
2024-02-22 17:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
@ 2024-02-23 10:03 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-02-23 10:19 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-02-23 23:59 ` Josh Poimboeuf
1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sumanth Korikkar @ 2024-02-23 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel test robot, s-vadapalli, r-gunasekaran, rogerq
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf, oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, Heiko Carstens, iii,
agordeev, davem, naresh.kamboju
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 02:42:01PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git features
> head: 4a5993287467d2d0401503256dc9d2690c7f2020
> commit: 778666df60f0d96f215e33e27448de47a2207fb3 [97/98] s390: compile relocatable kernel without -fPIE
> config: s390-randconfig-002-20231016 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>
> 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@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/
>
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> >> Unsupported relocation type: 21
>
> --
> 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
> https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
>
In the random config generated by lkp test robot
CONFIG_TI_CPSW=m
CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC=y
In drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile:
11 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
12 ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
...
16 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
17 ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
Here davinci_cpdma.o is used in both obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) and
obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW), one built as inbuilt and one built as module
correspondingly (randconfig)
This leads to conflict in Kbuild and results in linking davinci_cpdma.o
in vmlinux.
* However, davinci_cpdma.o is built with -DMODULE -fPIC.
* vmlinux is built with -fno-PIE.
This leads to R_390_GOTENT and R_390_GOTDBL entries in vmlinux, which is
not expected when building kernel with -fno-PIE.
Debug data:
==========
1.
CALL ../scripts/checksyscalls.sh
AR drivers/phy/ti/built-in.a
CC [M] drivers/phy/ti/phy-gmii-sel.o
../scripts/Makefile.build:243: ../drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile:
davinci_cpdma.o is added to multiple modules: ti_cpsw ti_davinci_emac <<<<<<<<
CC [M] drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.o
...
CC [M] drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.o
CC [M] drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ale.o
CC [M] drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_priv.o
CC [M] drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_sl.o
CC [M] drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_ethtool.o
AR drivers/phy/built-in.a
AR drivers/net/ethernet/ti/built-in.a
LD [M] drivers/net/ethernet/ti/ti_cpsw.o
AR drivers/net/ethernet/built-in.a
AR drivers/net/built-in.a
AR drivers/built-in.a
AR built-in.a
2.
ti/.davinci_cpdma.o.cmd:savedcmd_drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.o
:= This uses -DMODULE -fPIC <<<<<<
built-in.a:ti/davinci_cpdma.o/ <<<<<
Hence, the error by lkp robot. No fix should be necessary in
s390/tools/relocs.c
I think it should be either fixed in ti driver or in the kbuild.
Thank you,
Sumanth
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-02-23 10:03 ` Sumanth Korikkar
@ 2024-02-23 10:19 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-02-23 23:59 ` Josh Poimboeuf
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sumanth Korikkar @ 2024-02-23 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel test robot, s-vadapalli, r-gunasekaran, rogerq
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf, oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, Heiko Carstens, iii,
gor, agordeev, davem, naresh.kamboju
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:03:13AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 02:42:01PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git features
> > head: 4a5993287467d2d0401503256dc9d2690c7f2020
> > commit: 778666df60f0d96f215e33e27448de47a2207fb3 [97/98] s390: compile relocatable kernel without -fPIE
> > config: s390-randconfig-002-20231016 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > compiler: s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240222/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
> >
> > 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@intel.com>
> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/
> >
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > >> Unsupported relocation type: 21
> >
> > --
> > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
> > https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
> >
>
> In the random config generated by lkp test robot
>
> CONFIG_TI_CPSW=m
> CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC=y
>
> In drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile:
> 11 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
> 12 ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
> ...
> 16 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
> 17 ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
>
> Here davinci_cpdma.o is used in both obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) and
> obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW), one built as inbuilt and one built as module
> correspondingly (randconfig)
>
> This leads to conflict in Kbuild and results in linking davinci_cpdma.o
> in vmlinux.
> * However, davinci_cpdma.o is built with -DMODULE -fPIC.
> * vmlinux is built with -fno-PIE.
>
> This leads to R_390_GOTENT and R_390_GOTDBL entries in vmlinux, which is
> not expected when building kernel with -fno-PIE.
typo: R_390_GOTPCDBL
Thank you,
Sumanth
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-02-23 10:03 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-02-23 10:19 ` Sumanth Korikkar
@ 2024-02-23 23:59 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-02-26 10:54 ` Sumanth Korikkar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Josh Poimboeuf @ 2024-02-23 23:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sumanth Korikkar
Cc: kernel test robot, s-vadapalli, r-gunasekaran, rogerq,
oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, Heiko Carstens, iii, agordeev, davem,
naresh.kamboju
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:03:13AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> In the random config generated by lkp test robot
>
> CONFIG_TI_CPSW=m
> CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC=y
>
> In drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile:
> 11 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
> 12 ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
> ...
> 16 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
> 17 ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
>
> Here davinci_cpdma.o is used in both obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) and
> obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW), one built as inbuilt and one built as module
> correspondingly (randconfig)
>
> This leads to conflict in Kbuild and results in linking davinci_cpdma.o
> in vmlinux.
> * However, davinci_cpdma.o is built with -DMODULE -fPIC.
> * vmlinux is built with -fno-PIE.
>
> This leads to R_390_GOTENT and R_390_GOTDBL entries in vmlinux, which is
> not expected when building kernel with -fno-PIE.
Nice.
I suppose the current s390 memory model wouldn't support removing
-fPIC for modules?
Otherwise each driver could get its own copy of the object file:
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile
index d8590304f3df..ef6591b6a4c9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile
@@ -9,14 +9,14 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW_SWITCHDEV) += cpsw-common.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TLAN) += tlan.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
-ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
+ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o emac_cpdma.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_MDIO) += davinci_mdio.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW_PHY_SEL) += cpsw-phy-sel.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPTS) += cpts.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
-ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
+ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o cpsw_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW_SWITCHDEV) += ti_cpsw_new.o
-ti_cpsw_new-y := cpsw_switchdev.o cpsw_new.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_ethtool.o
+ti_cpsw_new-y := cpsw_switchdev.o cpsw_new.o cpsw_new_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_ethtool.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TI_KEYSTONE_NETCP) += keystone_netcp.o
keystone_netcp-y := netcp_core.o cpsw_ale.o
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_cpdma.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..017156225e7f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_cpdma.c
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+#include "davinci_cpdma.c"
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new_cpdma.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..017156225e7f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new_cpdma.c
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+#include "davinci_cpdma.c"
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/emac_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/emac_cpdma.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..017156225e7f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/emac_cpdma.c
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+#include "davinci_cpdma.c"
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-02-23 23:59 ` Josh Poimboeuf
@ 2024-02-26 10:54 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-02-26 12:55 ` Sumanth Korikkar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sumanth Korikkar @ 2024-02-26 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Poimboeuf
Cc: kernel test robot, s-vadapalli, r-gunasekaran, rogerq,
oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, Heiko Carstens, iii, agordeev, davem,
naresh.kamboju
Hi Josh,
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:59:39PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:03:13AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> > In the random config generated by lkp test robot
> >
> > CONFIG_TI_CPSW=m
> > CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC=y
> >
> > In drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile:
> > 11 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
> > 12 ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
> > ...
> > 16 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
> > 17 ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
> >
> > Here davinci_cpdma.o is used in both obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) and
> > obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW), one built as inbuilt and one built as module
> > correspondingly (randconfig)
> >
> > This leads to conflict in Kbuild and results in linking davinci_cpdma.o
> > in vmlinux.
> > * However, davinci_cpdma.o is built with -DMODULE -fPIC.
> > * vmlinux is built with -fno-PIE.
> >
> > This leads to R_390_GOTENT and R_390_GOTDBL entries in vmlinux, which is
> > not expected when building kernel with -fno-PIE.
>
> Nice.
>
> I suppose the current s390 memory model wouldn't support removing
> -fPIC for modules?
Answer from our toolchain team - Andreas Krebbel: It should be ideally
feasible to build modules without -fPIC on s390.
>
> Otherwise each driver could get its own copy of the object file:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile
> index d8590304f3df..ef6591b6a4c9 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile
> @@ -9,14 +9,14 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW_SWITCHDEV) += cpsw-common.o
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_TLAN) += tlan.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
> -ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
> +ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o emac_cpdma.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_MDIO) += davinci_mdio.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW_PHY_SEL) += cpsw-phy-sel.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPTS) += cpts.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
> -ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
> +ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o cpsw_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW_SWITCHDEV) += ti_cpsw_new.o
> -ti_cpsw_new-y := cpsw_switchdev.o cpsw_new.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_ethtool.o
> +ti_cpsw_new-y := cpsw_switchdev.o cpsw_new.o cpsw_new_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_ethtool.o
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_TI_KEYSTONE_NETCP) += keystone_netcp.o
> keystone_netcp-y := netcp_core.o cpsw_ale.o
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_cpdma.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..017156225e7f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_cpdma.c
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +#include "davinci_cpdma.c"
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new_cpdma.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..017156225e7f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new_cpdma.c
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +#include "davinci_cpdma.c"
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/emac_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/emac_cpdma.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..017156225e7f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/emac_cpdma.c
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +#include "davinci_cpdma.c"
>
Tried compiling it,
When I enabled both CONFIG_TI_CPSW_SWITCHDEV and CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC
to y, it could lead to the following:
LD vmlinux.o
ld: drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new_cpdma.o: in function `cpdma_ctlr_create':
linux/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c:511:
multiple definition of `cpdma_ctlr_create';
drivers/net/ethernet/ti/emac_cpdma.o:linux/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c:511:
first defined here
Thanks,
Sumanth
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-02-26 10:54 ` Sumanth Korikkar
@ 2024-02-26 12:55 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-03-07 15:28 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-03-07 15:38 ` Sumanth Korikkar
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sumanth Korikkar @ 2024-02-26 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Poimboeuf
Cc: kernel test robot, s-vadapalli, r-gunasekaran, rogerq,
oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, Heiko Carstens, iii, agordeev, davem,
naresh.kamboju
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:54:50AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:59:39PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:03:13AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> > > In the random config generated by lkp test robot
> > >
> > > CONFIG_TI_CPSW=m
> > > CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC=y
> > >
> > > In drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile:
> > > 11 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
> > > 12 ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
> > > ...
> > > 16 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
> > > 17 ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
> > >
> > > Here davinci_cpdma.o is used in both obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) and
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW), one built as inbuilt and one built as module
> > > correspondingly (randconfig)
> > >
> > > This leads to conflict in Kbuild and results in linking davinci_cpdma.o
> > > in vmlinux.
> > > * However, davinci_cpdma.o is built with -DMODULE -fPIC.
> > > * vmlinux is built with -fno-PIE.
> > >
> > > This leads to R_390_GOTENT and R_390_GOTDBL entries in vmlinux, which is
> > > not expected when building kernel with -fno-PIE.
> >
> > Nice.
> >
> > I suppose the current s390 memory model wouldn't support removing
> > -fPIC for modules?
>
> Answer from our toolchain team - Andreas Krebbel: It should be ideally
> feasible to build modules without -fPIC on s390.
FWIW, I'm looking into this right now. Let's see how things go.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-02-26 12:55 ` Sumanth Korikkar
@ 2024-03-07 15:28 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-03-07 15:38 ` Sumanth Korikkar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sumanth Korikkar @ 2024-03-07 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Poimboeuf, Heiko Carstens
Cc: kernel test robot, s-vadapalli, r-gunasekaran, rogerq,
oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, iii, agordeev, davem, naresh.kamboju
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:54:50AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:59:39PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:03:13AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> > > > In the random config generated by lkp test robot
> > > >
> > > > CONFIG_TI_CPSW=m
> > > > CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC=y
> > > >
> > > > In drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile:
> > > > 11 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
> > > > 12 ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
> > > > ...
> > > > 16 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
> > > > 17 ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
> > > >
> > > > Here davinci_cpdma.o is used in both obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) and
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW), one built as inbuilt and one built as module
> > > > correspondingly (randconfig)
> > > >
> > > > This leads to conflict in Kbuild and results in linking davinci_cpdma.o
> > > > in vmlinux.
> > > > * However, davinci_cpdma.o is built with -DMODULE -fPIC.
> > > > * vmlinux is built with -fno-PIE.
> > > >
> > > > This leads to R_390_GOTENT and R_390_GOTDBL entries in vmlinux, which is
> > > > not expected when building kernel with -fno-PIE.
> > >
> > > Nice.
> > >
> > > I suppose the current s390 memory model wouldn't support removing
> > > -fPIC for modules?
> >
> > Answer from our toolchain team - Andreas Krebbel: It should be ideally
> > feasible to build modules without -fPIC on s390.
>
> FWIW, I'm looking into this right now. Let's see how things go.
From d6641b8492ade37709a7099cea0ef71f29d062d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:46:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] s390/tools: handle rela R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64
lkp test robot reported unhandled relocation type: R_390_GOTPCDBL, when
kernel is built with -fno-PIE. relocs tool reads vmlinux and handles
absolute relocations. PC relative relocs doesn't need adjustment.
Also, the R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64 relocations are present
currently only when KASAN is enabled.
The following program can create a R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64 reloc
(with fPIE/fPIC).
void funcb(int *b) {
*b = *b + 100;
}
void gen_gotoff(void)
{
int b = 10;
funcb (&b);
}
gcc -c sample.c -fPIC -fsanitize=kernel-address --param asan-stack=1
The above example (built with -fPIC) was linked to one of the
built-in.a (built with -fno-PIE) and checked for correctness with kaslr
enabled. Both the relocs turns out relative and can be skipped.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/
Fixes: 55dc65b46023 ("s390: add relocs tool")
Signed-off-by: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@linux.ibm.com>
---
arch/s390/tools/relocs.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c b/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
index db8bcbf9d8f8..30a732c808f3 100644
--- a/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
+++ b/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
@@ -276,6 +276,8 @@ static int do_reloc(struct section *sec, Elf_Rel *rel)
case R_390_PC32DBL:
case R_390_PLT32DBL:
case R_390_GOTENT:
+ case R_390_GOTPCDBL:
+ case R_390_GOTOFF64:
break;
case R_390_64:
add_reloc(&relocs64, offset);
--
2.40.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-02-26 12:55 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-03-07 15:28 ` Sumanth Korikkar
@ 2024-03-07 15:38 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-03-07 15:52 ` Vasily Gorbik
2024-03-07 16:13 ` Heiko Carstens
1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sumanth Korikkar @ 2024-03-07 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Poimboeuf, Heiko Carstens, gor
Cc: kernel test robot, s-vadapalli, r-gunasekaran, rogerq,
oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, iii, agordeev, davem, naresh.kamboju,
sumanthk
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:54:50AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:59:39PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:03:13AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> > > > In the random config generated by lkp test robot
> > > >
> > > > CONFIG_TI_CPSW=m
> > > > CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC=y
> > > >
> > > > In drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile:
> > > > 11 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
> > > > 12 ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
> > > > ...
> > > > 16 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
> > > > 17 ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
> > > >
> > > > Here davinci_cpdma.o is used in both obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) and
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW), one built as inbuilt and one built as module
> > > > correspondingly (randconfig)
> > > >
> > > > This leads to conflict in Kbuild and results in linking davinci_cpdma.o
> > > > in vmlinux.
> > > > * However, davinci_cpdma.o is built with -DMODULE -fPIC.
> > > > * vmlinux is built with -fno-PIE.
> > > >
> > > > This leads to R_390_GOTENT and R_390_GOTDBL entries in vmlinux, which is
> > > > not expected when building kernel with -fno-PIE.
> > >
> > > Nice.
> > >
> > > I suppose the current s390 memory model wouldn't support removing
> > > -fPIC for modules?
> >
> > Answer from our toolchain team - Andreas Krebbel: It should be ideally
> > feasible to build modules without -fPIC on s390.
>
> FWIW, I'm looking into this right now. Let's see how things go.
From d6641b8492ade37709a7099cea0ef71f29d062d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:46:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] s390/tools: handle rela R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64
lkp test robot reported unhandled relocation type: R_390_GOTPCDBL, when
kernel is built with -fno-PIE. relocs tool reads vmlinux and handles
absolute relocations. PC relative relocs doesn't need adjustment.
Also, the R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64 relocations are present
currently only when KASAN is enabled.
The following program can create a R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64 reloc
(with fPIE/fPIC).
void funcb(int *b) {
*b = *b + 100;
}
void gen_gotoff(void)
{
int b = 10;
funcb (&b);
}
gcc -c sample.c -fPIC -fsanitize=kernel-address --param asan-stack=1
The above example (built with -fPIC) was linked to one of the
built-in.a (built with -fno-PIE) and checked for correctness with kaslr
enabled. Both the relocs turns out relative and can be skipped.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/
Fixes: 55dc65b46023 ("s390: add relocs tool")
Signed-off-by: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@linux.ibm.com>
---
arch/s390/tools/relocs.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c b/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
index db8bcbf9d8f8..30a732c808f3 100644
--- a/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
+++ b/arch/s390/tools/relocs.c
@@ -276,6 +276,8 @@ static int do_reloc(struct section *sec, Elf_Rel *rel)
case R_390_PC32DBL:
case R_390_PLT32DBL:
case R_390_GOTENT:
+ case R_390_GOTPCDBL:
+ case R_390_GOTOFF64:
break;
case R_390_64:
add_reloc(&relocs64, offset);
--
2.40.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-03-07 15:38 ` Sumanth Korikkar
@ 2024-03-07 15:52 ` Vasily Gorbik
2024-03-07 16:13 ` Heiko Carstens
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Vasily Gorbik @ 2024-03-07 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sumanth Korikkar
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf, Heiko Carstens, kernel test robot, s-vadapalli,
r-gunasekaran, rogerq, oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, iii, agordeev,
davem, naresh.kamboju
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 04:38:20PM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:54:50AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> > > Hi Josh,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:59:39PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:03:13AM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> > > > > In the random config generated by lkp test robot
> > > > >
> > > > > CONFIG_TI_CPSW=m
> > > > > CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC=y
> > > > >
> > > > > In drivers/net/ethernet/ti/Makefile:
> > > > > 11 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) += ti_davinci_emac.o
> > > > > 12 ti_davinci_emac-y := davinci_emac.o davinci_cpdma.o
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 16 obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW) += ti_cpsw.o
> > > > > 17 ti_cpsw-y := cpsw.o davinci_cpdma.o cpsw_ale.o cpsw_priv.o cpsw_sl.o cpsw_ethtool.o
> > > > >
> > > > > Here davinci_cpdma.o is used in both obj-$(CONFIG_TI_DAVINCI_EMAC) and
> > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TI_CPSW), one built as inbuilt and one built as module
> > > > > correspondingly (randconfig)
> > > > >
> > > > > This leads to conflict in Kbuild and results in linking davinci_cpdma.o
> > > > > in vmlinux.
> > > > > * However, davinci_cpdma.o is built with -DMODULE -fPIC.
> > > > > * vmlinux is built with -fno-PIE.
> > > > >
> > > > > This leads to R_390_GOTENT and R_390_GOTDBL entries in vmlinux, which is
> > > > > not expected when building kernel with -fno-PIE.
> > > >
> > > > Nice.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose the current s390 memory model wouldn't support removing
> > > > -fPIC for modules?
> > >
> > > Answer from our toolchain team - Andreas Krebbel: It should be ideally
> > > feasible to build modules without -fPIC on s390.
> >
> > FWIW, I'm looking into this right now. Let's see how things go.
>
> From d6641b8492ade37709a7099cea0ef71f29d062d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@linux.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:46:11 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] s390/tools: handle rela R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64
>
> lkp test robot reported unhandled relocation type: R_390_GOTPCDBL, when
> kernel is built with -fno-PIE. relocs tool reads vmlinux and handles
> absolute relocations. PC relative relocs doesn't need adjustment.
>
> Also, the R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64 relocations are present
> currently only when KASAN is enabled.
>
> The following program can create a R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64 reloc
> (with fPIE/fPIC).
>
> void funcb(int *b) {
> *b = *b + 100;
> }
>
> void gen_gotoff(void)
> {
> int b = 10;
> funcb (&b);
> }
>
> gcc -c sample.c -fPIC -fsanitize=kernel-address --param asan-stack=1
>
> The above example (built with -fPIC) was linked to one of the
> built-in.a (built with -fno-PIE) and checked for correctness with kaslr
> enabled. Both the relocs turns out relative and can be skipped.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/
> Fixes: 55dc65b46023 ("s390: add relocs tool")
> Signed-off-by: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/tools/relocs.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Acked-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21
2024-03-07 15:38 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-03-07 15:52 ` Vasily Gorbik
@ 2024-03-07 16:13 ` Heiko Carstens
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Heiko Carstens @ 2024-03-07 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sumanth Korikkar
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf, gor, kernel test robot, s-vadapalli,
r-gunasekaran, rogerq, oe-kbuild-all, linux-s390, iii, agordeev,
davem, naresh.kamboju
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 04:38:20PM +0100, Sumanth Korikkar wrote:
> From d6641b8492ade37709a7099cea0ef71f29d062d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@linux.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:46:11 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] s390/tools: handle rela R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64
>
> lkp test robot reported unhandled relocation type: R_390_GOTPCDBL, when
> kernel is built with -fno-PIE. relocs tool reads vmlinux and handles
> absolute relocations. PC relative relocs doesn't need adjustment.
>
> Also, the R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64 relocations are present
> currently only when KASAN is enabled.
>
> The following program can create a R_390_GOTPCDBL/R_390_GOTOFF64 reloc
> (with fPIE/fPIC).
>
> void funcb(int *b) {
> *b = *b + 100;
> }
>
> void gen_gotoff(void)
> {
> int b = 10;
> funcb (&b);
> }
>
> gcc -c sample.c -fPIC -fsanitize=kernel-address --param asan-stack=1
>
> The above example (built with -fPIC) was linked to one of the
> built-in.a (built with -fno-PIE) and checked for correctness with kaslr
> enabled. Both the relocs turns out relative and can be skipped.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402221404.T2TGs8El-lkp@intel.com/
> Fixes: 55dc65b46023 ("s390: add relocs tool")
> Signed-off-by: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/tools/relocs.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Applied, thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-03-07 16:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-02-22 6:42 [s390:features 97/98] Unsupported relocation type: 21 kernel test robot
2024-02-22 17:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-02-23 9:50 ` Yujie Liu
2024-02-23 10:03 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-02-23 10:19 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-02-23 23:59 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-02-26 10:54 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-02-26 12:55 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-03-07 15:28 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-03-07 15:38 ` Sumanth Korikkar
2024-03-07 15:52 ` Vasily Gorbik
2024-03-07 16:13 ` Heiko Carstens
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.