On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 03:24:59PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 3:12 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 08:05:17AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 22:07:57 +0200 Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > Yeah, it's there on linux-next, too. > > > > > > > > > > Let me grab a fresh VM and try there. Maybe it's my system. Somehow. > > > > > > > > ok, I will look around what's the way to install that centos 8 thing > > > > > > Any luck? > > > > now BTFIDS warnings.. > > > > I can see following on centos8 with gcc 8.5: > > > > BTFIDS vmlinux > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'task_struct': 300, 56614 - using 300 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'file': 540, 56649 - using 540 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'vm_area_struct': 549, 56652 - using 549 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'seq_file': 953, 56690 - using 953 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'inode': 1132, 56966 - using 1132 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'path': 1164, 56995 - using 1164 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'task_struct': 300, 61905 - using 300 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'file': 540, 61943 - using 540 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'vm_area_struct': 549, 61946 - using 549 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'inode': 1132, 62029 - using 1132 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'path': 1164, 62058 - using 1164 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'cgroup': 1190, 62067 - using 1190 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'seq_file': 953, 62253 - using 953 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'sock': 7960, 62374 - using 7960 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'sk_buff': 1876, 62485 - using 1876 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'bpf_prog': 6094, 62542 - using 6094 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'socket': 7993, 62545 - using 7993 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'xdp_buff': 6191, 62836 - using 6191 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'sock_common': 8164, 63152 - using 8164 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'request_sock': 17296, 63204 - using 17296 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'inet_request_sock': 36292, 63222 - using 36292 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'inet_sock': 32700, 63225 - using 32700 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'inet_connection_sock': 33944, 63240 - using 33944 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'tcp_request_sock': 36299, 63260 - using 36299 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'tcp_sock': 33969, 63264 - using 33969 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'bpf_map': 6623, 63343 - using 6623 > > > > I'll need to check on that.. > > > > and I just actually saw the 'nf_conn' warning on linux-next/master with > > latest fedora/gcc-12: > > > > BTF [M] net/netfilter/nf_nat.ko > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'nf_conn': 106518, 120156 - using 106518 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'nf_conn': 106518, 121853 - using 106518 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'nf_conn': 106518, 123126 - using 106518 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'nf_conn': 106518, 124537 - using 106518 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'nf_conn': 106518, 126442 - using 106518 > > WARN: multiple IDs found for 'nf_conn': 106518, 128256 - using 106518 > > LD [M] net/netfilter/nf_nat_tftp.ko > > > > looks like maybe dedup missed this struct for some reason > > > > nf_conn dump from module: > > > > [120155] PTR '(anon)' type_id=120156 > > [120156] STRUCT 'nf_conn' size=320 vlen=14 > > 'ct_general' type_id=105882 bits_offset=0 > > 'lock' type_id=180 bits_offset=64 > > 'timeout' type_id=113 bits_offset=640 > > 'zone' type_id=106520 bits_offset=672 > > 'tuplehash' type_id=106533 bits_offset=704 > > 'status' type_id=1 bits_offset=1600 > > 'ct_net' type_id=3215 bits_offset=1664 > > 'nat_bysource' type_id=139 bits_offset=1728 > > '__nfct_init_offset' type_id=949 bits_offset=1856 > > 'master' type_id=120155 bits_offset=1856 > > 'mark' type_id=106351 bits_offset=1920 > > 'secmark' type_id=106351 bits_offset=1952 > > 'ext' type_id=106536 bits_offset=1984 > > 'proto' type_id=106532 bits_offset=2048 > > > > nf_conn dump from vmlinux: > > > > [106517] PTR '(anon)' type_id=106518 > > [106518] STRUCT 'nf_conn' size=320 vlen=14 > > 'ct_general' type_id=105882 bits_offset=0 > > 'lock' type_id=180 bits_offset=64 > > 'timeout' type_id=113 bits_offset=640 > > 'zone' type_id=106520 bits_offset=672 > > 'tuplehash' type_id=106533 bits_offset=704 > > 'status' type_id=1 bits_offset=1600 > > 'ct_net' type_id=3215 bits_offset=1664 > > 'nat_bysource' type_id=139 bits_offset=1728 > > '__nfct_init_offset' type_id=949 bits_offset=1856 > > 'master' type_id=106517 bits_offset=1856 > > 'mark' type_id=106351 bits_offset=1920 > > 'secmark' type_id=106351 bits_offset=1952 > > 'ext' type_id=106536 bits_offset=1984 > > 'proto' type_id=106532 bits_offset=2048 > > > > look identical.. Andrii, any idea? > > I'm pretty sure they are not identical. There is somewhere a STRUCT vs > FWD difference. We had a similar discussion recently with Alan > Maguire. > > > 'master' type_id=120155 bits_offset=1856 > > vs > > > 'master' type_id=106517 bits_offset=1856 master is pointer to same 'nf_conn' object, and rest of the ids are same jirka
