Re: [PATCH] bpf.h: fix clang compiler warning with unpriv_ebpf_notify()

[Luis Chamberlain]

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 09:03:13AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:58 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 01:36:23PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > The recent commit "bpf: Move BPF sysctls from kernel/sysctl.c to BPF core"
> > > triggered 0-day to issue an email for what seems to have been an old
> > > clang warning. So this issue should have existed before as well, from
> > > what I can tell. The issue is that clang expects a forward declaration
> > > for routines declared as weak while gcc does not.
> > >
> > > This can be reproduced with 0-day's x86_64-randconfig-c007
> > > https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220424/202204240008.JDntM9cU-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config
> > >
> > > And using:
> > >
> > > COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1 ARCH=x86_64 SHELL=/bin/bash kernel/bpf/syscall.o
> > > Compiler will be installed in /home/mcgrof/0day
> > > make --keep-going HOSTCC=/home/mcgrof/0day/clang/bin/clang CC=/home/mcgrof/0day/clang/bin/clang LD=/home/mcgrof/0day/clang/bin/ld.lld HOSTLD=/home/mcgrof/0day/clang/bin/ld.lld AR=llvm-ar NM=llvm-nm STRIP=llvm-strip OBJCOPY=llvm-objcopy OBJDUMP=llvm-objdump OBJSIZE=llvm-size READELF=llvm-readelf HOSTCXX=clang++ HOSTAR=llvm-ar CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- --jobs=24 W=1 ARCH=x86_64 SHELL=/bin/bash kernel/bpf/syscall.o
> > >   DESCEND objtool
> > >   CALL    scripts/atomic/check-atomics.sh
> > >   CALL    scripts/checksyscalls.sh
> > >   CC      kernel/bpf/syscall.o
> > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4944:13: warning: no previous prototype for function 'unpriv_ebpf_notify' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > void __weak unpriv_ebpf_notify(int new_state)
> > >             ^
> > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4944:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
> > > void __weak unpriv_ebpf_notify(int new_state)
> > > ^
> > > static
> > >
> > > Fixes: 2900005ea287 ("bpf: Move BPF sysctls from kernel/sysctl.c to BPF core")
> > > Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > Given what we did fore 2900005ea287 ("bpf: Move BPF sysctls from
> > > kernel/sysctl.c to BPF core") where I had pulled pr/bpf-sysctl a
> > > while ago into sysctl-next and then merged the patch in question,
> > > should I just safely carry this patch onto sysctl-next? Let me know
> > > how you'd like to proceed.
> > >
> > > Also, it wasn't clear if putting this forward declaration on
> > > bpf.h was your ideal preference.
> >
> > After testing this on sysctl-testing without issues going to move this
> > to sysctl-next now.
> 
> Hmm. No.
> A similar patch should be in tip already. You have to wait
> for it to go through Linus's tree and back to whatever tree you use.

I'm a bit confused, the patch in question which my patch fixes should only
be in my sysctl-next tree at this point, not in Linus's tree.

  Luis