2015-04-07 07:19:11

by Stephen Rothwell

Subject: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

Hi all,

After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no member named 'prog_type'
if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
^

Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
attached to kprobes").

I have used the tip tree from next-20150402 for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]

Attachments:

2015-04-07 08:48:37

by Ingo Molnar

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

* Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no member named 'prog_type'
> if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> ^
>
> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
> attached to kprobes").

Note, this must be some (rarely triggered) aspect of the ppc64
defconfig that neither x86 randconfigs nor most other arch defconfigs
expose?

Thanks,

Ingo

2015-04-07 08:54:05

by Peter Zijlstra

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 05:18:58PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no member named 'prog_type'
> if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> ^
>
> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
> attached to kprobes").
>
> I have used the tip tree from next-20150402 for today.

Hmm, tip/master builds fine on ppc64 for me, but does something like the
below help?

---
Subject: perf: Fix BPF filter crud

The BPF filter crud got its CONFIG deps wrong, fix it.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 06917d5..1d94b92 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -6711,6 +6711,25 @@ static void perf_event_free_filter(struct perf_event *event)
ftrace_profile_free_filter(event);
}

+#else /* EVENT_TRACING */
+
+static inline void perf_tp_register(void)
+{
+}
+
+static int perf_event_set_filter(struct perf_event *event, void __user *arg)
+{
+ return -ENOENT;
+}
+
+static void perf_event_free_filter(struct perf_event *event)
+{
+}
+
+#endif /* EVENT_TRACING */
+
+#if defined CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS && defined CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING
+
static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
{
struct bpf_prog *prog;
@@ -6754,20 +6773,7 @@ static void perf_event_free_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event)
}
}

-#else
-
-static inline void perf_tp_register(void)
-{
-}
-
-static int perf_event_set_filter(struct perf_event *event, void __user *arg)
-{
- return -ENOENT;
-}
-
-static void perf_event_free_filter(struct perf_event *event)
-{
-}
+#else /* BPF_EVENTS && EVENT_TRACING */

static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
{
@@ -6777,7 +6783,8 @@ static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
static void perf_event_free_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event)
{
}
-#endif /* CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING */
+
+#endif /* BPF_EVENTS && EVENT_TRACING */

#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT
void perf_bp_event(struct perf_event *bp, void *data)

2015-04-07 08:56:53

by Daniel Borkmann

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

On 04/07/2015 10:48 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
>> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>>
>> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
>> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no member named 'prog_type'
>> if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
>> ^
>>
>> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
>> attached to kprobes").
>
> Note, this must be some (rarely triggered) aspect of the ppc64
> defconfig that neither x86 randconfigs nor most other arch defconfigs
> expose?

Note, this is a merge conflict with the work that went via net-next tree,
i.e. 24701ecea76b ("ebpf: move read-only fields to bpf_prog and shrink
bpf_prog_aux"). I believe that is why it didn't trigger on tip tree.

You should be able to resolve it in linux-next by changing the test to:

if (prog->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {

Thanks,
Daniel

2015-04-07 09:05:38

by Stephen Rothwell

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

Hi Daniel,

On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:56:13 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 04/07/2015 10:48 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> >> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >>
> >> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
> >> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no member named 'prog_type'
> >> if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> >> ^
> >>
> >> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
> >> attached to kprobes").
> >
> > Note, this must be some (rarely triggered) aspect of the ppc64
> > defconfig that neither x86 randconfigs nor most other arch defconfigs
> > expose?
>
> Note, this is a merge conflict with the work that went via net-next tree,
> i.e. 24701ecea76b ("ebpf: move read-only fields to bpf_prog and shrink
> bpf_prog_aux"). I believe that is why it didn't trigger on tip tree.
>
> You should be able to resolve it in linux-next by changing the test to:
>
> if (prog->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {

Thanks Daniel, I will do that tomorrow. Someone will have to remember
to tell Linus.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]

Attachments:

2015-04-07 11:14:19

by Daniel Borkmann

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

[ Cc'ing Dave, fyi ]

On 04/07/2015 11:05 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:56:13 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 04/07/2015 10:48 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
>>>> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>>>>
>>>> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
>>>> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no member named 'prog_type'
>>>> if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
>>>> ^
>>>>
>>>> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
>>>> attached to kprobes").
>>>
>>> Note, this must be some (rarely triggered) aspect of the ppc64
>>> defconfig that neither x86 randconfigs nor most other arch defconfigs
>>> expose?
>>
>> Note, this is a merge conflict with the work that went via net-next tree,
>> i.e. 24701ecea76b ("ebpf: move read-only fields to bpf_prog and shrink
>> bpf_prog_aux"). I believe that is why it didn't trigger on tip tree.
>>
>> You should be able to resolve it in linux-next by changing the test to:
>>
>> if (prog->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
>
> Thanks Daniel, I will do that tomorrow. Someone will have to remember
> to tell Linus.

Yes, indeed, depending which tree is merged first.

Thanks,
Daniel

2015-04-07 16:18:14

by Alexei Starovoitov

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

On 4/7/15 4:13 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> [ Cc'ing Dave, fyi ]
>
> On 04/07/2015 11:05 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:56:13 +0200 Daniel Borkmann
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2015 10:48 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
>>>>> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
>>>>> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no
>>>>> member named 'prog_type'
>>>>> if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
>>>>> ^
>>>>>
>>>>> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
>>>>> attached to kprobes").
>>>>
>>>> Note, this must be some (rarely triggered) aspect of the ppc64
>>>> defconfig that neither x86 randconfigs nor most other arch defconfigs
>>>> expose?
>>>
>>> Note, this is a merge conflict with the work that went via net-next
>>> tree,
>>> i.e. 24701ecea76b ("ebpf: move read-only fields to bpf_prog and shrink
>>> bpf_prog_aux"). I believe that is why it didn't trigger on tip tree.
>>>
>>> You should be able to resolve it in linux-next by changing the test to:
>>>
>>> if (prog->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
>>
>> Thanks Daniel, I will do that tomorrow. Someone will have to remember
>> to tell Linus.
>
> Yes, indeed, depending which tree is merged first.

Daniel analysis is correct, but the fix for kernel/events/core.c
should be:
- if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
+ if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
instead of 'prog->prog_type'

Thanks Stephen!

2015-04-07 19:54:53

by Daniel Borkmann

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

On 04/07/2015 06:18 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 4/7/15 4:13 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> [ Cc'ing Dave, fyi ]
>>
>> On 04/07/2015 11:05 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:56:13 +0200 Daniel Borkmann
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2015 10:48 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>> * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
>>>>>> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
>>>>>> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no
>>>>>> member named 'prog_type'
>>>>>> if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
>>>>>> ^
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
>>>>>> attached to kprobes").
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, this must be some (rarely triggered) aspect of the ppc64
>>>>> defconfig that neither x86 randconfigs nor most other arch defconfigs
>>>>> expose?
>>>>
>>>> Note, this is a merge conflict with the work that went via net-next
>>>> tree,
>>>> i.e. 24701ecea76b ("ebpf: move read-only fields to bpf_prog and shrink
>>>> bpf_prog_aux"). I believe that is why it didn't trigger on tip tree.
>>>>
>>>> You should be able to resolve it in linux-next by changing the test to:
>>>>
>>>> if (prog->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
>>>
>>> Thanks Daniel, I will do that tomorrow. Someone will have to remember
>>> to tell Linus.
>>
>> Yes, indeed, depending which tree is merged first.
>
> Daniel analysis is correct, but the fix for kernel/events/core.c
> should be:
> - if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> + if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> instead of 'prog->prog_type'

Yes, absolutely, thanks!

2015-04-08 05:03:39

by Stephen Rothwell

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

Hi all,

On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:54:05 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 04/07/2015 06:18 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On 4/7/15 4:13 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >> [ Cc'ing Dave, fyi ]
> >>
> >> On 04/07/2015 11:05 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:56:13 +0200 Daniel Borkmann
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On 04/07/2015 10:48 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>>> * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> >>>>>> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
> >>>>>> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no
> >>>>>> member named 'prog_type'
> >>>>>> if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> >>>>>> ^
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
> >>>>>> attached to kprobes").
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note, this must be some (rarely triggered) aspect of the ppc64
> >>>>> defconfig that neither x86 randconfigs nor most other arch defconfigs
> >>>>> expose?
> >>>>
> >>>> Note, this is a merge conflict with the work that went via net-next
> >>>> tree,
> >>>> i.e. 24701ecea76b ("ebpf: move read-only fields to bpf_prog and shrink
> >>>> bpf_prog_aux"). I believe that is why it didn't trigger on tip tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> You should be able to resolve it in linux-next by changing the test to:
> >>>>
> >>>> if (prog->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Daniel, I will do that tomorrow. Someone will have to remember
> >>> to tell Linus.
> >>
> >> Yes, indeed, depending which tree is merged first.
> >
> > Daniel analysis is correct, but the fix for kernel/events/core.c
> > should be:
> > - if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> > + if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> > instead of 'prog->prog_type'
>
> Yes, absolutely, thanks!

So I have applied that as a merge fix patch.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]

Attachments:

2015-04-13 23:35:15

by Stephen Rothwell

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

Hi Russell,

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:08:38 +0100 Russell King - ARM Linux <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:57:48AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > On 03/30/2015 03:08 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Russell,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:15:37 +0100 Russell King - ARM Linux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'll drop the VDSO stuff from the ARM tree; I can't see a way to keep
> > >> it in my tree and keep my tree buildable without dragging in the tip
> > >> tree.
> > >
> > > Does it affect your tree on its own? If not, then it can be fixed when
> > > merged as I have done, or if you look at the tip tree, all you really
> > > need to merge is tip timers/core branch (which I am sure the tip guys
> > > can tell you if it is stable enough) which is about 28 commits ...
> > >
> > >> The ARM VDSO stuff will just have to wait for 4.2 instead.
> > >
> > > If that works for you.
> >
> > FWIW, Stephen's merge fix is correct and I have run my vdso tests
> > without problems on OMAP5 with next-20150330.
>
> Hopefully, I can pull the tip stuff but if not, I'll try to remember
> to include Stephen's patch with my pull request, but I can't make any
> guarantees - Stephen's email will very quickly get buried in my mailbox,
> and I'll most likely forget about it too... I'm notoriously bad with
> email...

This patch is now needed when the arm tree is merged with Linus' tree
(the tip tree part has been merged).

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]

Attachments:

2015-04-15 01:26:03

by Stephen Rothwell

Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

Hi all,

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 15:03:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:54:05 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/07/2015 06:18 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On 4/7/15 4:13 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > >> [ Cc'ing Dave, fyi ]
> > >>
> > >> On 04/07/2015 11:05 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:56:13 +0200 Daniel Borkmann
> > >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> On 04/07/2015 10:48 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >>>>> * Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > >>>>>> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
> > >>>>>> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no
> > >>>>>> member named 'prog_type'
> > >>>>>> if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> > >>>>>> ^
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
> > >>>>>> attached to kprobes").
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Note, this must be some (rarely triggered) aspect of the ppc64
> > >>>>> defconfig that neither x86 randconfigs nor most other arch defconfigs
> > >>>>> expose?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Note, this is a merge conflict with the work that went via net-next
> > >>>> tree,
> > >>>> i.e. 24701ecea76b ("ebpf: move read-only fields to bpf_prog and shrink
> > >>>> bpf_prog_aux"). I believe that is why it didn't trigger on tip tree.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You should be able to resolve it in linux-next by changing the test to:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> if (prog->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks Daniel, I will do that tomorrow. Someone will have to remember
> > >>> to tell Linus.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, indeed, depending which tree is merged first.
> > >
> > > Daniel analysis is correct, but the fix for kernel/events/core.c
> > > should be:
> > > - if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> > > + if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> > > instead of 'prog->prog_type'
> >
> > Yes, absolutely, thanks!
>
> So I have applied that as a merge fix patch.

This patch is now needed when the net-next tree is merged with Linus'
tree.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]

Attachments: