On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 03:34:15PM +0800, WangYuli wrote: > > On 2024/7/6 17:30, Greg KH wrote: > > This makes it sound like you are reverting this because of a build > > error, which is not the case here, right? Isn't this because of the > > powerpc issue reported here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240705203413.wbv2nw3747vjeibk@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > ? > > No, it only occurs on ARM64 architecture. The reason is that before being > modified, the function > > bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro() in arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +1651 > > was introduced with __must_check, which is defined as > __attribute__((__warn_unused_result__)). > > > However, at this point, calling bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header) > coincidentally results in an unused-result > > warning. Ok, thanks, but why is no one else seeing this in their testing? > > If not, why not just backport the single missing arm64 commit, > > Upstream commit 1dad391daef1 ("bpf, arm64: use bpf_prog_pack for memory > management") is part of > > a larger change that involves multiple commits. It's not an isolated commit. > > > We could certainly backport all of them to solve this problem, but it's not > the simplest solution. reverting the change feels wrong in that you will still have the bug present that it was trying to solve, right? If so, can you then provide a working version? thanks, greg k-h
