linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree
alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 15:18:50 PST 2020
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:28 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alexandre at ghiti.fr> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> On 10/27/19 8:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr at canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> >> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> >> WARNING: 2 bad relocations
> >> c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start
> >> c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end
> >> Introduced by commit
> >> 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF")
> > This warning now appears in the net-next tree build.
> I bump that thread up because Zong also noticed that 2 new relocations for
> those symbols appeared in my riscv relocatable kernel branch following
> that commit.
> I also noticed 2 new relocations R_AARCH64_ABS64 appearing in arm64 kernel.
> Those 2 weak undefined symbols have existed since commit
> 341dfcf8d78e ("btf: expose BTF info through sysfs") but this is the fact
> to declare those symbols into btf.c that produced those relocations.
> I'm not sure what this all means, but this is not something I expected
> for riscv for
> a kernel linked with -shared/-fpie. Maybe should we just leave them to
> zero ?
> I think that deserves a deeper look if someone understands all this
> better than I do.
Are you saying there is a warning for arm64 as well?
Can ppc folks explain the above warning?
What does it mean "2 bad relocations"?
The code is doing:
extern char __weak _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start;
extern char __weak _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end;
Since they are weak they should be zero when not defined.
What's the issue?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel