On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 11:35 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:25:41AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 11:05 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (arm64
> > > defconfig) failed like this:
> > >
> > > Building: arm64 defconfig
> > > In file included from arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17,
> > > from include/linux/thread_info.h:60,
> > > from arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:6,
> > > from include/linux/preempt.h:79,
> > > from include/linux/spinlock.h:56,
> > > from include/linux/mmzone.h:8,
> > > from include/linux/gfp.h:7,
> > > from include/linux/slab.h:16,
> > > from mm/slab_common.c:7:
> > > mm/slab_common.c: In function 'bpf_get_kmem_cache':
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:427:66: error: passing argument 1 of 'virt_to_pfn' makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
> > > 427 | __is_lm_address(__addr) && pfn_is_map_memory(virt_to_pfn(__addr)); \
> > > | ^~~~~~
> > > | |
> > > | u64 {aka long long unsigned int}
> > > mm/slab_common.c:1260:14: note: in expansion of macro 'virt_addr_valid'
> > > 1260 | if (!virt_addr_valid(addr))
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:382:53: note: expected 'const void *' but argument is of type 'u64' {aka 'long long unsigned int'}
> > > 382 | static inline unsigned long virt_to_pfn(const void *kaddr)
> > > | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~
> > >
> > > Caused by commit
> > >
> > > 04b069ff0181 ("mm/bpf: Add bpf_get_kmem_cache() kfunc")
> > >
> > > I have reverted commit
> > >
> > > 08c837461891 ("Merge branch 'bpf-add-kmem_cache-iterator-and-kfunc'")
> > >
> > > for today.
> >
> > Thanks for flagging.
> > Fixed and force pushed.
>
> Oops, thanks for fixing this. The virt_addr_valid() was confusing
> whether it takes unsigned long or a pointer. It seems each arch has
> different expectation.
if (!virt_addr_valid((void *)(long)addr))
did the trick for me and that's what I pushed.
Odd that our bpf CI on arm64 didn't catch it.
