linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree

Alexandre Ghiti alexandre at
Sat Jan 11 06:31:48 PST 2020

On 1/10/20 7:20 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:28:17 PST (-0800), alexandre at 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> 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.
> Can you give me a pointer to your tree and how to build a relocatable 
> kernel?
> Weak undefined symbols have the absolute value 0,

So according to you the 2 new relocations R_RISCV_64 are normal and 
should not
be modified at runtime right ?

> but the kernel is linked at
> an address such that 0 can't be reached by normal means.  When I added 
> support
> to binutils for this I did it in a way that required almost no code --
> essetially I just stopped dissallowing x0 as a possible base register 
> for PCREL
> relocations, which results in 0 always being accessible.  I just 
> wanted to get
> the kernel to build again, so I didn't worry about chasing around all the
> addressing modes.  The PIC/PIE support generates different relocations 
> and I
> wouldn't be surprised if I just missed one (or more likely all) of them.
> It's probably a simple fix, though I feel like every time I say that 
> about the
> linker I end up spending a month in there...

You can find it here:

Zong fixed the bug introduced by those 2 new relocations and everything 
like a charm, so I'm not sure you have to dig in the linker :)


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list