Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:11:15 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Holger =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hoffst=E4tte?= 
        <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuah@kernel.org,
        patches@kernelci.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de,
        jonathanh@nvidia.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/131] 5.10.44-rc1 review
Message-ID: <YMd/owzz9xQ9p0ca@kroah.com>
References: <20210614102652.964395392@linuxfoundation.org>
 <83a2f94d-dd6e-2796-ad04-2f92ac3e583d@applied-asynchrony.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <83a2f94d-dd6e-2796-ad04-2f92ac3e583d@applied-asynchrony.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 05:36:45PM +0200, Holger Hoffst?tte wrote:
> On 2021-06-14 12:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.44 release.
> 
> Hmm..I build my kernel with BTF for bpftrace and this gives me:
> 
> ...
>   CC      init/version.o
>   AR      init/built-in.a
>   LD      vmlinux.o
>   MODPOST vmlinux.symvers
>   MODINFO modules.builtin.modinfo
>   GEN     modules.builtin
>   LD      .tmp_vmlinux.btf
>   BTF     .btf.vmlinux.bin.o
>   LD      .tmp_vmlinux.kallsyms1
>   KSYMS   .tmp_vmlinux.kallsyms1.S
>   AS      .tmp_vmlinux.kallsyms1.S
>   LD      .tmp_vmlinux.kallsyms2
>   KSYMS   .tmp_vmlinux.kallsyms2.S
>   AS      .tmp_vmlinux.kallsyms2.S
>   LD      vmlinux
>   BTFIDS  vmlinux
> FAILED unresolved symbol migrate_enable
> 
> thanks to:
> 
> > Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> >      bpf: Add deny list of btf ids check for tracing programs
> 
> When I revert this it builds fine, just like before. Maybe a missing
> requirement or followup fix? I didn't find anything with a quick search.
> Using gcc-11, if it matters.

Looks like we need the change that exported this function, let me see if
it's worth to add that, or to revert this one...

thanks,

greg k-h