Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 15:16:41 +0800
From:   kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
To:     Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     llvm@lists.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev,
        keescook@chromium.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        andrii@kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, wad@chromium.org,
        alexyonghe@tencent.com, hengqi.chen@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] seccomp, bpf: Introduce SECCOMP_LOAD_FILTER operation
Message-ID: <202310111556.DzEDzt3Z-lkp@intel.com>
References: <20231009124046.74710-3-hengqi.chen@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231009124046.74710-3-hengqi.chen@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Hengqi,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on kees/for-next/seccomp]
[also build test ERROR on bpf-next/master bpf/master kees/for-next/pstore kees/for-next/kspp linus/master v6.6-rc5 next-20231010]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Hengqi-Chen/seccomp-Refactor-filter-copy-create-for-reuse/20231010-100354
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git for-next/seccomp
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231009124046.74710-3-hengqi.chen%40gmail.com
patch subject: [PATCH 2/4] seccomp, bpf: Introduce SECCOMP_LOAD_FILTER operation
config: um-allyesconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231011/202310111556.DzEDzt3Z-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 14.0.6 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git f28c006a5895fc0e329fe15fead81e37457cb1d1)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231011/202310111556.DzEDzt3Z-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202310111556.DzEDzt3Z-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   In file included from kernel/seccomp.c:29:
   In file included from include/linux/syscalls.h:90:
   In file included from include/trace/syscall.h:7:
   In file included from include/linux/trace_events.h:9:
   In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:11:
   In file included from arch/um/include/asm/hardirq.h:5:
   In file included from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17:
   In file included from include/linux/irq.h:20:
   In file included from include/linux/io.h:13:
   In file included from arch/um/include/asm/io.h:24:
   include/asm-generic/io.h:547:31: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           val = __raw_readb(PCI_IOBASE + addr);
                             ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:560:61: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           val = __le16_to_cpu((__le16 __force)__raw_readw(PCI_IOBASE + addr));
                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h:37:51: note: expanded from macro '__le16_to_cpu'
   #define __le16_to_cpu(x) ((__force __u16)(__le16)(x))
                                                     ^
   In file included from kernel/seccomp.c:29:
   In file included from include/linux/syscalls.h:90:
   In file included from include/trace/syscall.h:7:
   In file included from include/linux/trace_events.h:9:
   In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:11:
   In file included from arch/um/include/asm/hardirq.h:5:
   In file included from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17:
   In file included from include/linux/irq.h:20:
   In file included from include/linux/io.h:13:
   In file included from arch/um/include/asm/io.h:24:
   include/asm-generic/io.h:573:61: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           val = __le32_to_cpu((__le32 __force)__raw_readl(PCI_IOBASE + addr));
                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h:35:51: note: expanded from macro '__le32_to_cpu'
   #define __le32_to_cpu(x) ((__force __u32)(__le32)(x))
                                                     ^
   In file included from kernel/seccomp.c:29:
   In file included from include/linux/syscalls.h:90:
   In file included from include/trace/syscall.h:7:
   In file included from include/linux/trace_events.h:9:
   In file included from include/linux/hardirq.h:11:
   In file included from arch/um/include/asm/hardirq.h:5:
   In file included from include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17:
   In file included from include/linux/irq.h:20:
   In file included from include/linux/io.h:13:
   In file included from arch/um/include/asm/io.h:24:
   include/asm-generic/io.h:584:33: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           __raw_writeb(value, PCI_IOBASE + addr);
                               ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:594:59: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           __raw_writew((u16 __force)cpu_to_le16(value), PCI_IOBASE + addr);
                                                         ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:604:59: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           __raw_writel((u32 __force)cpu_to_le32(value), PCI_IOBASE + addr);
                                                         ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:692:20: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           readsb(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count);
                  ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:700:20: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           readsw(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count);
                  ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:708:20: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           readsl(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count);
                  ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:717:21: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           writesb(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count);
                   ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:726:21: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           writesw(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count);
                   ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
   include/asm-generic/io.h:735:21: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
           writesl(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count);
                   ~~~~~~~~~~ ^
>> kernel/seccomp.c:2046:8: error: implicit declaration of function 'security_bpf_prog_alloc' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
           ret = security_bpf_prog_alloc(prog->aux);
                 ^
   kernel/seccomp.c:2046:8: note: did you mean 'security_msg_msg_alloc'?
   include/linux/security.h:1245:19: note: 'security_msg_msg_alloc' declared here
   static inline int security_msg_msg_alloc(struct msg_msg *msg)
                     ^
>> kernel/seccomp.c:2056:8: error: implicit declaration of function 'bpf_prog_new_fd' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
           ret = bpf_prog_new_fd(prog);
                 ^
   12 warnings and 2 errors generated.


vim +/security_bpf_prog_alloc +2046 kernel/seccomp.c

  2031	
  2032	static long seccomp_load_filter(const char __user *filter)
  2033	{
  2034		struct sock_fprog fprog;
  2035		struct bpf_prog *prog;
  2036		int ret;
  2037	
  2038		ret = seccomp_copy_user_filter(filter, &fprog);
  2039		if (ret)
  2040			return ret;
  2041	
  2042		ret = seccomp_prepare_prog(&prog, &fprog);
  2043		if (ret)
  2044			return ret;
  2045	
> 2046		ret = security_bpf_prog_alloc(prog->aux);
  2047		if (ret) {
  2048			bpf_prog_free(prog);
  2049			return ret;
  2050		}
  2051	
  2052		prog->aux->user = get_current_user();
  2053		atomic64_set(&prog->aux->refcnt, 1);
  2054		prog->type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SECCOMP;
  2055	
> 2056		ret = bpf_prog_new_fd(prog);
  2057		if (ret < 0)
  2058			bpf_prog_put(prog);
  2059		return ret;
  2060	}
  2061	#else
  2062	static inline long seccomp_set_mode_filter(unsigned int flags,
  2063						   const char __user *filter)
  2064	{
  2065		return -EINVAL;
  2066	}
  2067	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki