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

[Randy Dunlap]

On 3/30/20 11:05 AM, KP Singh wrote:
> 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.

Hi KP,
That sounds reasonable.

Thanks.

> 
> 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.


-- 
~Randy