On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:27 AM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:24 AM Nick Desaulniers > <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:22 AM Alexei Starovoitov > > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:18 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 09:42:20AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > > Marcus and Satya reported an issue where BTF_ID macro generates same > > > > > symbol in separate objects and that breaks final vmlinux link. > > > > > > > > > > ld.lld: error: ld-temp.o <inline asm>:14577:1: symbol > > > > > '__BTF_ID__struct__cgroup__624' is already defined > > > > > > > > > > This can be triggered under specific configs when __COUNTER__ happens to > > > > > be the same for the same symbol in two different translation units, > > > > > which is already quite unlikely to happen. > > > > > > > > > > Add __LINE__ number suffix to make BTF_ID symbol more unique, which is > > > > > not a complete fix, but it would help for now and meanwhile we can work > > > > > on better solution as suggested by Andrii. > > > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > Reported-by: Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <quic_satyap@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reported-by: Marcus Seyfarth <m.seyfarth@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Closes: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1913 > > > > > Tested-by: Marcus Seyfarth <m.seyfarth@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Debugged-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Co-developed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4Bzb5KQ2_LmhN769ifMeSJaWfebccUasQOfQKaOd0nQ51tw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > tools/include/linux/btf_ids.h | 2 +- > > > > > > > > Shouldn't this diff be in include/linux/btf_ids.h as well? Otherwise, I > > > > don't think it will be used by the kernel build. > > > > D'oh! > > > > > > > > argh. > > > Let's do this patch as-is and another patch to update everything > > > in tools/../btf_ids.h, since it got out of sync quite a bit. > > > > I think I can do both in a v3? I don't see the issue (in mainline, are > > they out of sync in -next?) > > Yes. Pls send v3 with two patches. > We'll apply and flush bpf trees, so both will have all fixes in a day or so. And please use [PATCH bpf v3] in subject, so that BPF CI can test it properly.
