Messages in this thread | | | From | Nick Desaulniers <> | Date | Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:24:00 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: Fix BTF_ID symbol generation collision |
| |
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:22 AM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:18 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> 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@vger.kernel.org > > > Reported-by: Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <quic_satyap@quicinc.com> > > > Reported-by: Marcus Seyfarth <m.seyfarth@gmail.com> > > > Closes: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1913 > > > Tested-by: Marcus Seyfarth <m.seyfarth@gmail.com> > > > Debugged-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> > > > Co-developed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4Bzb5KQ2_LmhN769ifMeSJaWfebccUasQOfQKaOd0nQ51tw@mail.gmail.com/ > > > Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > > > --- > > > 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?)
-- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
| |