* [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors @ 2021-01-14 22:45 Josh Poimboeuf 2021-01-15 11:39 ` Miroslav Benes ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Josh Poimboeuf @ 2021-01-14 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: x86 Cc: linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Miroslav Benes, Borislav Petkov, Julien Thierry, Nick Desaulniers This is basically a revert of commit 644592d32837 ("objtool: Fail the kernel build on fatal errors"). That change turned out to be more trouble than it's worth. Failing the build is an extreme measure which sometimes gets too much attention and blocks CI build testing. These fatal-type warnings aren't yet as rare as we'd hope, due to the ever-increasing matrix of supported toolchains/plugins and their fast-changing nature as of late. Also, there are more people (and bots) looking for objtool warnings than ever before, so such warnings not likely to be ignored for long. Suggested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> --- tools/objtool/check.c | 14 +++++--------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c index 5f8d3eed78a1..4bd30315eb62 100644 --- a/tools/objtool/check.c +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c @@ -2928,14 +2928,10 @@ int check(struct objtool_file *file) warnings += ret; out: - if (ret < 0) { - /* - * Fatal error. The binary is corrupt or otherwise broken in - * some way, or objtool itself is broken. Fail the kernel - * build. - */ - return ret; - } - + /* + * For now, don't fail the kernel build on fatal warnings. These + * errors are still fairly common due to the growing matrix of + * supported toolchains and their recent pace of change. + */ return 0; } -- 2.29.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors 2021-01-14 22:45 [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors Josh Poimboeuf @ 2021-01-15 11:39 ` Miroslav Benes 2021-01-15 18:45 ` Nick Desaulniers 2021-01-21 4:52 ` Kamalesh Babulal 2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Miroslav Benes @ 2021-01-15 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: x86, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Borislav Petkov, Julien Thierry, Nick Desaulniers On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > This is basically a revert of commit 644592d32837 ("objtool: Fail the > kernel build on fatal errors"). > > That change turned out to be more trouble than it's worth. Failing the > build is an extreme measure which sometimes gets too much attention and > blocks CI build testing. > > These fatal-type warnings aren't yet as rare as we'd hope, due to the > ever-increasing matrix of supported toolchains/plugins and their > fast-changing nature as of late. > > Also, there are more people (and bots) looking for objtool warnings than > ever before, so such warnings not likely to be ignored for long. > > Suggested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz> M ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors 2021-01-14 22:45 [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors Josh Poimboeuf 2021-01-15 11:39 ` Miroslav Benes @ 2021-01-15 18:45 ` Nick Desaulniers 2021-01-21 4:52 ` Kamalesh Babulal 2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2021-01-15 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT), LKML, Peter Zijlstra, Miroslav Benes, Borislav Petkov, Julien Thierry On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 2:46 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > > This is basically a revert of commit 644592d32837 ("objtool: Fail the > kernel build on fatal errors"). > > That change turned out to be more trouble than it's worth. Failing the > build is an extreme measure which sometimes gets too much attention and > blocks CI build testing. > > These fatal-type warnings aren't yet as rare as we'd hope, due to the > ever-increasing matrix of supported toolchains/plugins and their > fast-changing nature as of late. > > Also, there are more people (and bots) looking for objtool warnings than > ever before, so such warnings not likely to be ignored for long. > > Suggested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> Thank you; I feel the arguments against enabling -Werror for the kernel apply here. The warnings are annoying enough that we plan to follow up on them all. Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > --- > tools/objtool/check.c | 14 +++++--------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c > index 5f8d3eed78a1..4bd30315eb62 100644 > --- a/tools/objtool/check.c > +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c > @@ -2928,14 +2928,10 @@ int check(struct objtool_file *file) > warnings += ret; > > out: > - if (ret < 0) { > - /* > - * Fatal error. The binary is corrupt or otherwise broken in > - * some way, or objtool itself is broken. Fail the kernel > - * build. > - */ > - return ret; > - } > - > + /* > + * For now, don't fail the kernel build on fatal warnings. These > + * errors are still fairly common due to the growing matrix of > + * supported toolchains and their recent pace of change. > + */ > return 0; > } > -- > 2.29.2 > -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors 2021-01-14 22:45 [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors Josh Poimboeuf 2021-01-15 11:39 ` Miroslav Benes 2021-01-15 18:45 ` Nick Desaulniers @ 2021-01-21 4:52 ` Kamalesh Babulal 2021-01-21 7:32 ` György Andrasek 2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Kamalesh Babulal @ 2021-01-21 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Miroslav Benes, Borislav Petkov, Julien Thierry, Nick Desaulniers, x86 On 1/15/21 4:15 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > This is basically a revert of commit 644592d32837 ("objtool: Fail the > kernel build on fatal errors"). > > That change turned out to be more trouble than it's worth. Failing the > build is an extreme measure which sometimes gets too much attention and > blocks CI build testing. > > These fatal-type warnings aren't yet as rare as we'd hope, due to the > ever-increasing matrix of supported toolchains/plugins and their > fast-changing nature as of late. > > Also, there are more people (and bots) looking for objtool warnings than > ever before, so such warnings not likely to be ignored for long. > > Suggested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> -- Kamalesh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors 2021-01-21 4:52 ` Kamalesh Babulal @ 2021-01-21 7:32 ` György Andrasek 2021-01-22 2:27 ` Steven Rostedt 2021-01-22 7:49 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: György Andrasek @ 2021-01-21 7:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kamalesh Babulal, Josh Poimboeuf Cc: linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Miroslav Benes, Borislav Petkov, Julien Thierry, Nick Desaulniers, x86 > This is basically a revert of commit 644592d32837 ("objtool: Fail the kernel build on fatal errors"). > That change turned out to be more trouble than it's worth. ...I'm sorry, what? Fatal errors are normal for you people? Seriously? I've been compiling my own kernel since 2004, I've never seen one. I'd like some explanation on this. > Failing the build is an extreme measure which sometimes gets too much attention and blocks CI build testing. If you already know it's broken, there's no point testing it. Why are you so desperately trying to ignore it? Are you getting paid to be here or are you this stupid for free? Have you tried calling an ambulance on Android lately? I can reboot my Huawei with schedtool on Termux. Unrooted, stock. THE LINUX KERNEL IS MEASURED IN HUMAN LIVES. > These fatal-type warnings GET THE FUCK OUT WITH YOUR BULLSHIT DOUBLESPEAK > aren't yet as rare as we'd hope How many times do you need to ignore an obvious compiler bug until you hope it away? > due to the ever-increasing matrix of supported toolchains/plugins llvm+clang compiles with cmake. In "Release" mode, cmake helpfully appends a -O3 for you, which is the kind of "optimization" where the compiler deliberately misinterprets the programmer's intention to declare an UB, and then uses its godlike might to decide the target of an explicit constcast is unreachable. If you recompile systemd with the result, it will not understand your password anymore. This was yesterday. The day before, it errored out on m4 with some undefined linkage into compiler-rt. WITH AN EXPLICIT --rtlib=libgcc FLAG ON A GCC-BASED DISTRO #!/bin/sh exec /usr/bin/gcc "${@}" -O2 ...or did you find a third broken compiler somewhere? > Also, there are more people (and bots) looking for objtool warnings than ever before, so such warnings not likely to be ignored for long. Why not? You seem to be doing just fine. Ask OpenBSD for a toolchain, see if it works. Or better yet, ask them to build the kernel for you. This has already been Reviewed-by. I'm rejecting both these morons as invalid. Please review everything they've been doing lately. --- Yo, Linus! What the fuck is this shit? I'm tempted to I don't care which one of these whiny little bitches cut your dick off and stuffed it into your mouth. Either spit it out or swallow and shit it out, but we can't afford this. Source-based Linux is dead. Gentoo is a cronjob spewing out endless broken stage3's, and every single Exherbo dev has unsubscribed from their own mailing list. I'm the last one standing. I've spent the last two weeks trying to review the damage. I'm not going to package it either, but you need to know why. Also, I've quit my job because I couldn't sleep for four days straight. I'm typing this in Thunderbird because fucking KONSOLE SEGFAULTED WHEN I TYPED VIM. I do not feel at home on a binary distro, and I cannot build a browser on a real one. I would like to explain politely, under the [foxfire] tag. Anyone who does not want to know why I think it likely that some Gentoo+ maintainers have literally committed suicide, feel free to filter it out. Should you happen to agree with some of my opinions, I'd like you to revert every single "fix" for "undefined behavior" that was merged for clang. The C standard committee does not define the result because they have no idea whether it makes sense in context AND THEY KNOW IT. I mean seriously, why do these need a lawyer to know whether or not const is just a helpful suggestion in a UNIX KERNEL? And we build with -std=gnu -fgnu-keywords -fuck-your-pdf (I mean, did you get at least this far?). We don't have any more flags to tell you you're not in Kansas, Dorothy. You don't give us more. There's nothing undefined about the concept of "Linux boots on MIPS". THERE IS LITERALLY NO OTHER DEFINITION OF A KERNEL AND IT WORKS WHEN I BUILD THE TOOLCHAIN. If you fucked it up, that's not our problem. cmake+llvm builds with -Wno-maybe-uninitialized. They can't even fix their warnings, so they hide it. This is not a compiler, it's a random number generator. --- I came here as a last, desperate stance to get organized and shovel the shit back in the horse, and this is what I find. Oh well. At least it will be educational. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors 2021-01-21 7:32 ` György Andrasek @ 2021-01-22 2:27 ` Steven Rostedt 2021-01-22 7:49 ` Greg KH 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Steven Rostedt @ 2021-01-22 2:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: György Andrasek Cc: Kamalesh Babulal, Josh Poimboeuf, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Miroslav Benes, Borislav Petkov, Julien Thierry, Nick Desaulniers, x86 On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:32:35AM +0100, György Andrasek wrote: > > This is basically a revert of commit 644592d32837 ("objtool: Fail the > kernel build on fatal errors"). > > > That change turned out to be more trouble than it's worth. > > ...I'm sorry, what? Fatal errors are normal for you people? Seriously? I've > been compiling my own kernel since 2004, I've never seen one. I'd like some > explanation on this. > I'm sorry, who are you? And why are you wasting our time with your drivel? This mailing list is not a place to work on your anger management issues, please find a therapist. Thanks, -- Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors 2021-01-21 7:32 ` György Andrasek 2021-01-22 2:27 ` Steven Rostedt @ 2021-01-22 7:49 ` Greg KH 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2021-01-22 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: György Andrasek Cc: Kamalesh Babulal, Josh Poimboeuf, linux-kernel, Peter Zijlstra, Miroslav Benes, Borislav Petkov, Julien Thierry, Nick Desaulniers, x86 On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:32:35AM +0100, György Andrasek wrote: > I'm rejecting both these morons as invalid. Please review everything they've > been doing lately. As Stephen said, please take this elsewhere, it does not belong on the Linux kernel mailing lists. greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-22 7:51 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-01-14 22:45 [PATCH] objtool: Don't fail the kernel build on fatal errors Josh Poimboeuf 2021-01-15 11:39 ` Miroslav Benes 2021-01-15 18:45 ` Nick Desaulniers 2021-01-21 4:52 ` Kamalesh Babulal 2021-01-21 7:32 ` György Andrasek 2021-01-22 2:27 ` Steven Rostedt 2021-01-22 7:49 ` Greg KH
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).