-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 305
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
special-static.patch can fail to build on s390x / upstream v6.8 #1381
Comments
Hm, that's odd. I haven't seen anything like that before. Maybe changes to non-bundled sections could be downgraded to warnings. Or if this seems like a fluke we could do KPATCH_IGNORE_SECTION() for that patch.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the current test triggers a change in a function which actually uses such variables, so let's stick with that :-)
Yeah, I think so. |
Here are the object files for special-static.patch as built on RHEL-9.3: It looks like copy_signal() only references a few __key variables, though the greater fork.o file a few others (like |
This issue has been open for 30 days with no activity and no assignee. It will be closed in 7 days unless a comment is added. |
This issue was closed because it was inactive for 7 days after being marked stale. |
This issue has been open for 30 days with no activity and no assignee. It will be closed in 7 days unless a comment is added. |
This issue was closed because it was inactive for 7 days after being marked stale. |
For some reason, gcc on s390x decides to rearrange instructions due to this patch (my own notes correlating instructions added on the right hand side) and the build fails as those changes land in the .init.text section:
The fork_idle() function was annotated as
__init
way back in v5.14 torvalds/linux@f1a0a376ca0c ("sched/core: Initialize the idle task with preemption disabled"), so I'm surprised this is only failing now.@jpoimboe : two questions about this test:
__warned
and__key
so-called special static local variables. Do these special symbols need to exist in kpatch-modified functions, or merely somewhere in kpatch-modified object files?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: