Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: Fix BTF_ID symbol generation collision

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:27 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:24 AM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:22 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:18 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 09:42:20AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > > Marcus and Satya reported an issue where BTF_ID macro generates same
> > > > > symbol in separate objects and that breaks final vmlinux link.
> > > > >
> > > > >   ld.lld: error: ld-temp.o <inline asm>:14577:1: symbol
> > > > >   '__BTF_ID__struct__cgroup__624' is already defined
> > > > >
> > > > > This can be triggered under specific configs when __COUNTER__ happens to
> > > > > be the same for the same symbol in two different translation units,
> > > > > which is already quite unlikely to happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add __LINE__ number suffix to make BTF_ID symbol more unique, which is
> > > > > not a complete fix, but it would help for now and meanwhile we can work
> > > > > on better solution as suggested by Andrii.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Reported-by: Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <quic_satyap@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reported-by: Marcus Seyfarth <m.seyfarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Closes: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1913
> > > > > Tested-by: Marcus Seyfarth <m.seyfarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Debugged-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Co-developed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4Bzb5KQ2_LmhN769ifMeSJaWfebccUasQOfQKaOd0nQ51tw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  tools/include/linux/btf_ids.h | 2 +-
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't this diff be in include/linux/btf_ids.h as well? Otherwise, I
> > > > don't think it will be used by the kernel build.
> >
> > D'oh!
> >
> > >
> > > argh.
> > > Let's do this patch as-is and another patch to update everything
> > > in tools/../btf_ids.h, since it got out of sync quite a bit.
> >
> > I think I can do both in a v3? I don't see the issue (in mainline, are
> > they out of sync in -next?)
>
> Yes. Pls send v3 with two patches.
> We'll apply and flush bpf trees, so both will have all fixes in a day or so.

And please use [PATCH bpf v3] in subject, so that BPF CI can test it properly.