Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:45:28 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 2 (objtool)
Message-ID: <20190703194528.7kk7v44whdp7ol5a@treble>
References: <20190702195158.79aa5517@canb.auug.org.au>
 <b0238309-72b4-1a5c-77ff-89c7e432e2ba@infradead.org>
 <20190703164458.imjawnoczygb2vvd@treble>
 <a3135000-c12d-9800-f58d-eabbfcfa1d3f@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a3135000-c12d-9800-f58d-eabbfcfa1d3f@infradead.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 10:23:21AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 7/3/19 9:44 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 11:47:02AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 7/2/19 2:51 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Changes since 20190701:
> >>>
> >>
> >> on x86_64:
> >>
> >> kernel/bpf/core.o: warning: objtool: ___bpf_prog_run()+0x22: can't find switch jump table
> > 
> > I don't see it on current linux-next/master.  Can you share the config
> > and .o?
> > 
> 
> This warning happened in 6 of 10 builds for 20190702.
> 
> Today (20190703) I don't see it at all, but I see this instead:
> kernel/bpf/core.o: warning: objtool: ___bpf_prog_run()+0xa3: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame
> 
> Kernel (rand)config file and .o file for 20190702 are attached.

Thanks, I'm able to recreate the sibling call warning with a randconfig
on today's linux-next.

GCC is doing some funky stuff.  With my randconfig, ___bpf_prog_run()
has 166 indirect calls to its jump table.  Seems (a bit!) excessive.

I'll need to look into it.

-- 
Josh