* linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
@ 2021-10-18 6:23 Stephen Rothwell
2021-10-18 6:45 ` Qi Zheng
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2021-10-18 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Kees Cook, Qi Zheng, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]
Hi all,
After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allnoconfig)
failed like this:
arch/x86/kernel/process.c: In function '__get_wchan':
arch/x86/kernel/process.c:950:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'stack_trace_save_tsk' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
950 | stack_trace_save_tsk(p, &entry, 1, 0);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
Caused by commit
bc9bbb81730e ("x86: Fix get_wchan() to support the ORC unwinder")
stack_trace_save_tsk() requires CONFIG_STACKTRACE which is not set for
this build.
I have reverted that commit, and commit
42a20f86dc19 ("sched: Add wrapper for get_wchan() to keep task blocked")
which follows it, for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree 2021-10-18 6:23 linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree Stephen Rothwell @ 2021-10-18 6:45 ` Qi Zheng 2021-10-22 7:43 ` [PATCH] stacktrace: Provide stack_trace_save_tsk() stub in the !CONFIG_STACKTRACE case too Ingo Molnar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Qi Zheng @ 2021-10-18 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Rothwell, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, Peter Zijlstra Cc: Kees Cook, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List On 10/18/21 2:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allnoconfig) > failed like this: > > arch/x86/kernel/process.c: In function '__get_wchan': > arch/x86/kernel/process.c:950:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'stack_trace_save_tsk' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 950 | stack_trace_save_tsk(p, &entry, 1, 0); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > Caused by commit > > bc9bbb81730e ("x86: Fix get_wchan() to support the ORC unwinder") > > stack_trace_save_tsk() requires CONFIG_STACKTRACE which is not set for > this build. Maybe get_wchan() can be updated to: unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p) { #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE unsigned long entry = 0; stack_trace_save_tsk(p, &entry, 1, 0); return entry; #else /* CONFIG_STACKTRACE */ return 0; #endif } Thanks, Qi > > I have reverted that commit, and commit > > 42a20f86dc19 ("sched: Add wrapper for get_wchan() to keep task blocked") > > which follows it, for today. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] stacktrace: Provide stack_trace_save_tsk() stub in the !CONFIG_STACKTRACE case too 2021-10-18 6:45 ` Qi Zheng @ 2021-10-22 7:43 ` Ingo Molnar 2021-10-22 11:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Ingo Molnar @ 2021-10-22 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Qi Zheng Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, Peter Zijlstra, Kees Cook, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List * Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> wrote: > > > On 10/18/21 2:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allnoconfig) > > failed like this: > > > > arch/x86/kernel/process.c: In function '__get_wchan': > > arch/x86/kernel/process.c:950:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'stack_trace_save_tsk' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > 950 | stack_trace_save_tsk(p, &entry, 1, 0); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > > > Caused by commit > > > > bc9bbb81730e ("x86: Fix get_wchan() to support the ORC unwinder") > > > > stack_trace_save_tsk() requires CONFIG_STACKTRACE which is not set for > > this build. > > Maybe get_wchan() can be updated to: > > unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p) > { > #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE > unsigned long entry = 0; > > stack_trace_save_tsk(p, &entry, 1, 0); > return entry; > #else /* CONFIG_STACKTRACE */ > return 0; > #endif > } And repeat the same ugliness in every single function that happens to use the stack_trace_save_tsk() API?? The correct solution is to define stack_trace_save_tsk() in the !CONFIG_STACKTRACE case too, as the patch below does. Thanks, Ingo ==============================> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:40:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] stacktrace: Provide stack_trace_save_tsk() stub in the !CONFIG_STACKTRACE case too The following commit: bc9bbb81730e ("x86: Fix get_wchan() to support the ORC unwinder") Added stack_trace_save_tsk() use to __get_wchan(), while this method is not unconditionally defined: it's not available in the !CONFIG_STACKTRACE case. Give a default implementation that does nothing. Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Fixes: bc9bbb81730e ("x86: Fix get_wchan() to support the ORC unwinder") Cc: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> --- include/linux/stacktrace.h | 13 ++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/stacktrace.h b/include/linux/stacktrace.h index 9edecb494e9e..3ccaf599630f 100644 --- a/include/linux/stacktrace.h +++ b/include/linux/stacktrace.h @@ -91,8 +91,19 @@ extern void save_stack_trace_tsk(struct task_struct *tsk, extern int save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stack_trace *trace); extern void save_stack_trace_user(struct stack_trace *trace); + #endif /* !CONFIG_ARCH_STACKWALK */ -#endif /* CONFIG_STACKTRACE */ + +#else /* !CONFIG_STACKTRACE: */ +static inline unsigned int +stack_trace_save_tsk(struct task_struct *task, + unsigned long *store, unsigned int size, + unsigned int skipnr) +{ + return -ENOSYS; +} + +#endif /* !CONFIG_STACKTRACE */ #if defined(CONFIG_STACKTRACE) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE) int stack_trace_save_tsk_reliable(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned long *store, ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] stacktrace: Provide stack_trace_save_tsk() stub in the !CONFIG_STACKTRACE case too 2021-10-22 7:43 ` [PATCH] stacktrace: Provide stack_trace_save_tsk() stub in the !CONFIG_STACKTRACE case too Ingo Molnar @ 2021-10-22 11:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2021-10-22 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Qi Zheng, Stephen Rothwell, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, Kees Cook, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 09:43:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 10/18/21 2:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allnoconfig) > > > failed like this: > > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/process.c: In function '__get_wchan': > > > arch/x86/kernel/process.c:950:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'stack_trace_save_tsk' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > > 950 | stack_trace_save_tsk(p, &entry, 1, 0); > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > > > > > Caused by commit > > > > > > bc9bbb81730e ("x86: Fix get_wchan() to support the ORC unwinder") > > > > > > stack_trace_save_tsk() requires CONFIG_STACKTRACE which is not set for > > > this build. > > > > Maybe get_wchan() can be updated to: > > > > unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p) > > { > > #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE > > unsigned long entry = 0; > > > > stack_trace_save_tsk(p, &entry, 1, 0); > > return entry; > > #else /* CONFIG_STACKTRACE */ > > return 0; > > #endif > > } > > And repeat the same ugliness in every single function that happens to use > the stack_trace_save_tsk() API?? > > The correct solution is to define stack_trace_save_tsk() in the > !CONFIG_STACKTRACE case too, as the patch below does. That doesn't make sense for x86. We have an unconditional unwinder present. I've got these, meant to post them later today: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/log/?h=sched/wchan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-22 11:42 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-10-18 6:23 linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree Stephen Rothwell 2021-10-18 6:45 ` Qi Zheng 2021-10-22 7:43 ` [PATCH] stacktrace: Provide stack_trace_save_tsk() stub in the !CONFIG_STACKTRACE case too Ingo Molnar 2021-10-22 11:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).