On 8/3/20 7:51 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:41 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/3/20 7:34 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 8/3/20 7:15 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 8/3/20 12:29 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
Add kernel module with user mode driver that populates bpffs with
BPF iterators.
[...]
CC kernel/events/ring_buffer.o
CC [U] kernel/bpf/preload/./../../../tools/lib/bpf/bpf.o
CC [U] kernel/bpf/preload/./../../../tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.o
In file included from kernel/bpf/preload/./../../../tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c:47:0:
./tools/include/tools/libc_compat.h:11:21: error: static declaration of ‘reallocarray’ follows non-static declaration
static inline void *reallocarray(void *ptr, size_t nmemb, size_t size)
^~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from kernel/bpf/preload/./../../../tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c:16:0:
/usr/include/stdlib.h:558:14: note: previous declaration of ‘reallocarray’ was here
extern void *reallocarray (void *__ptr, size_t __nmemb, size_t __size)
^~~~~~~~~~~~
A bit offtopic. reallocarray and related feature detection causes so
much hassle, that I'm strongly tempted to just get rid of it in the
entire libbpf. Or just unconditionally implement libbpf-specific
reallocarray function. Any objections?
Agree that it's continuously causing pain; no objection from my side to have
something libbpf-specifc for example (along with a comment on /why/ we're not
reusing it anymore).
CC kernel/user-return-notifier.o
scripts/Makefile.userprogs:43: recipe for target 'kernel/bpf/preload/./../../../tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.o' failed
make[3]: *** [kernel/bpf/preload/./../../../tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.o] Error 1
scripts/Makefile.build:497: recipe for target 'kernel/bpf/preload' failed
make[2]: *** [kernel/bpf/preload] Error 2
scripts/Makefile.build:497: recipe for target 'kernel/bpf' failed
make[1]: *** [kernel/bpf] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
[...]
