Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:20:10 -0800 (PST) | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> | Subject | Re: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the bpf-next tree |
| |
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:28:17 PST (-0800), alexandre@ghiti.fr wrote: > Hi guys, > > On 10/27/19 8:02 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:56:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc >>> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: >>> >>> WARNING: 2 bad relocations >>> c000000001998a48 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_start >>> c000000001998a50 R_PPC64_ADDR64 _binary__btf_vmlinux_bin_end >>> >>> Introduced by commit >>> >>> 8580ac9404f6 ("bpf: Process in-kernel BTF") >> This warning now appears in the net-next tree build. >> >> > I bump that thread up because Zong also noticed that 2 new relocations for > those symbols appeared in my riscv relocatable kernel branch following > that commit. > > I also noticed 2 new relocations R_AARCH64_ABS64 appearing in arm64 kernel. > > Those 2 weak undefined symbols have existed since commit > 341dfcf8d78e ("btf: expose BTF info through sysfs") but this is the fact > to declare those symbols into btf.c that produced those relocations. > > I'm not sure what this all means, but this is not something I expected > for riscv for > a kernel linked with -shared/-fpie. Maybe should we just leave them to > zero ? > > I think that deserves a deeper look if someone understands all this > better than I do.
Can you give me a pointer to your tree and how to build a relocatable kernel? Weak undefined symbols have the absolute value 0, but the kernel is linked at an address such that 0 can't be reached by normal means. When I added support to binutils for this I did it in a way that required almost no code -- essetially I just stopped dissallowing x0 as a possible base register for PCREL relocations, which results in 0 always being accessible. I just wanted to get the kernel to build again, so I didn't worry about chasing around all the addressing modes. The PIC/PIE support generates different relocations and I wouldn't be surprised if I just missed one (or more likely all) of them.
It's probably a simple fix, though I feel like every time I say that about the linker I end up spending a month in there...
| |