Re: [PATCH 2/4] seccomp, bpf: Introduce SECCOMP_LOAD_FILTER operation
From: kernel test robot
Date: Wed Oct 11 2023 - 03:17:40 EST
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@xxxxxxxxx/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@xxxxxxxxx/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@xxxxxxxxx>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202310111556.DzEDzt3Z-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
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