Here are the build results from automated periodic testing.
The tree being built was stable-rc, found at:
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
Branch: linux-4.14.y
Topmost commits: b32d455 Linux 4.14.14-rc1 7dda8c2 x86/retpoline: Remove compile time warning 87be739 x86,perf: Disable intel_bts when PTI
Build logs (stderr only) can be found at the following link (experimental):
http://arm-soc.lixom.net/buildlogs/stable-rc/v4.14.13-119-gb32d455/
Runtime: 56m 47s
Passed: 124 Failed: 0
Warnings: 2
Section mismatches: 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed defconfigs:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No errors
Warnings:
arm.allmodconfig: /tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18153: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour /tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18225: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour
No new syscalls
No section mismatches
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Olof's autobuilder build@lixom.net wrote:
Warnings:
arm.allmodconfig:/tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18153: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour /tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18225: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour
This appears to be an old issue that only now started to get reported here. From what I can tell, new versions of binutils warn about two isntructions in the kprobes test:
Maybe we can work around it using a patch like below?
Arnd
diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c index 8866aedfdea2..8b7df0ce04d2 100644 --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c @@ -169,10 +169,10 @@ void kprobe_arm_test_cases(void)
/* Data-processing with PC as a target and status registers updated */ TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, r1") - TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, r1, lsl r2") + TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe1b0f211) " @ movs pc, r1, lsl r2") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, #0x10000") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, r1") - TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, r1, lsl r2") + TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe09ef211) " @ adds pc, lr, r1, lsl r2") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, #4")
/* Data-processing with SP as target */
On 15 January 2018 at 13:38, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Olof's autobuilder build@lixom.net wrote:
Warnings:
arm.allmodconfig:/tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18153: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour /tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18225: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour
This appears to be an old issue that only now started to get reported here. From what I can tell, new versions of binutils warn about two isntructions in the kprobes test:
Maybe we can work around it using a patch like below?
Arnd
Can't we just add -Wa,--no-warn for this file?
diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c index 8866aedfdea2..8b7df0ce04d2 100644 --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c @@ -169,10 +169,10 @@ void kprobe_arm_test_cases(void)
/* Data-processing with PC as a target and status registers updated */ TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, r1")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, r1, lsl r2")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe1b0f211) " @ movs pc, r1, lsl r2") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, #0x10000") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, r1")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, r1, lsl r2")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe09ef211) " @ adds pc,lr, r1, lsl r2") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, #4")
/* Data-processing with SP as target */
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org wrote:
On 15 January 2018 at 13:38, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Olof's autobuilder build@lixom.net wrote:
Warnings:
arm.allmodconfig:/tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18153: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour /tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18225: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour
This appears to be an old issue that only now started to get reported here. From what I can tell, new versions of binutils warn about two isntructions in the kprobes test:
Maybe we can work around it using a patch like below?
ArndCan't we just add -Wa,--no-warn for this file?
Probably (have not tried). Any reason for preferring one approach over the other? My suggestion for using __inst_arm() was based on that macro already being used a lot in the file, I just don't know if I used it right.
If we turn off the warnings, would you change some of the __inst_arm() back intro the proper instructions?
diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c index 8866aedfdea2..8b7df0ce04d2 100644 --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c @@ -169,10 +169,10 @@ void kprobe_arm_test_cases(void)
/* Data-processing with PC as a target and status registers updated */ TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, r1")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, r1, lsl r2")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe1b0f211) " @ movs pc, r1, lsl r2") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, #0x10000") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, r1")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, r1, lsl r2")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe09ef211) " @ adds pc,lr, r1, lsl r2") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, #4")
/* Data-processing with SP as target */
On 15 January 2018 at 15:17, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org wrote:
On 15 January 2018 at 13:38, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Olof's autobuilder build@lixom.net wrote:
Warnings:
arm.allmodconfig:/tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18153: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour /tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18225: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour
This appears to be an old issue that only now started to get reported here. From what I can tell, new versions of binutils warn about two isntructions in the kprobes test:
Maybe we can work around it using a patch like below?
ArndCan't we just add -Wa,--no-warn for this file?
Probably (have not tried). Any reason for preferring one approach over the other? My suggestion for using __inst_arm() was based on that macro already being used a lot in the file, I just don't know if I used it right.
If we turn off the warnings, would you change some of the __inst_arm() back intro the proper instructions?
TBH I didn't look at the file before replying. But it appears some of the opcodes trigger errors rather than warnings, so we can't get rid of all of them. I still think just disabling assembler warnings is justified here.
diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c index 8866aedfdea2..8b7df0ce04d2 100644 --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c @@ -169,10 +169,10 @@ void kprobe_arm_test_cases(void)
/* Data-processing with PC as a target and status registers updated */ TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, r1")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, r1, lsl r2")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe1b0f211) " @ movs pc, r1, lsl r2") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("movs pc, #0x10000") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, r1")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, r1, lsl r2")
TEST_UNSUPPORTED(__inst_arm(0xe09ef211) " @ adds pc,lr, r1, lsl r2") TEST_UNSUPPORTED("adds pc, lr, #4")
/* Data-processing with SP as target */
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org wrote:
On 15 January 2018 at 15:17, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org wrote:
On 15 January 2018 at 13:38, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Olof's autobuilder build@lixom.net wrote:
Warnings:
arm.allmodconfig:/tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18153: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour /tmp/cccX4oa4.s:18225: Warning: using r15 results in unpredictable behaviour
This appears to be an old issue that only now started to get reported here. From what I can tell, new versions of binutils warn about two isntructions in the kprobes test:
Maybe we can work around it using a patch like below?
ArndCan't we just add -Wa,--no-warn for this file?
Probably (have not tried). Any reason for preferring one approach over the other? My suggestion for using __inst_arm() was based on that macro already being used a lot in the file, I just don't know if I used it right.
If we turn off the warnings, would you change some of the __inst_arm() back intro the proper instructions?
TBH I didn't look at the file before replying. But it appears some of the opcodes trigger errors rather than warnings, so we can't get rid of all of them. I still think just disabling assembler warnings is justified here.
I have not put my patch in Russell's tracker yet, but now that I did some tests with LTO, the warning has come back, since in the LTO case, the "-Wa," flags to individual .c files are ignored.
Arnd
kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org
-
Ard Biesheuvel -
Arnd Bergmann -
Olof's autobuilder