Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 30 (bpf)

[KP Singh]

On 30-Mar 19:54, KP Singh wrote:

So, it looks like bpf_tracing_func_proto is only defined when
CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS is set:

        obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS) += bpf_trace.o

We have a few options:

* Add a __weak symbol for bpf_tracing_func_proto which we have done in
  the past for similar issues. This however, does not make much sense,
  as CONFIG_BPF_LSM cannot really do much without its helpers.
* Make CONFIG_BPF_LSM depend on CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS, this should solve
  it, but not for this particular Kconfig that was generated. Randy,
  I am assuming if we add the dependency, this particular Kconfig
  won't be generated.

I am assuming this patch now needs to be sent for "bpf" and not
"bpf-next" as the merge window has opened?

- KP

> Thanks for adding me Daniel, taking a look.
> 
> - KP
> 
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:25 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > [Cc KP, ptal]
> >
> > On 3/30/20 7:15 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 3/30/20 2:43 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> The merge window has opened, so please do not add any material for the
> > >> next release into your linux-next included trees/branches until after
> > >> the merge window closes.
> > >>
> > >> Changes since 20200327:
> > >
> > > (note: linux-next is based on linux 5.6-rc7)
> > >
> > >
> > > on i386:
> > >
> > > ld: kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.o:(.rodata+0x0): undefined reference to `bpf_tracing_func_proto'
> > >
> > >
> > > Full randconfig file is attached.
> > >
> >