On 12/9/24 22:39, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 07:43:32PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 12/9/24 18:06, kernel test robot wrote: >>> kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings: >>> >>> [auto build test WARNING on akpm-mm/mm-everything] >>> >>> url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Anshuman-Khandual/mm-execmem-Make-ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE-depend-on-EXECMEM/20241209-111533 >>> base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything >>> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241209031251.515903-1-anshuman.khandual%40arm.com >>> patch subject: [PATCH] mm/execmem: Make ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE depend on EXECMEM >>> config: arm64-kismet-CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE-CONFIG_ARM64-0-0 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241209/202412092048.tTzJ5szH-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config) >>> reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241209/202412092048.tTzJ5szH-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/reproduce) >>> >>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of >>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags >>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> >>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202412092048.tTzJ5szH-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> kismet warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) >>>>> kismet: WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE when selected by ARM64 >>> WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE >>> Depends on [n]: EXECMEM [=n] >>> Selected by [y]: >>> - ARM64 [=y] >> >> Although above mentioned config here has CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE=y >> and CONFIG_EXECMEM=n (actually absent), could that really happen though ? >> >> Tried making CONFIG_EXECMEM=n (rather deselecting) but that did now allow >> setting CONFIG_EXECMEM=n, it always remained set. Reverting this patch i.e >> the current behaviour is also the same (CONFIG_EXECMEM always remains set). >> >> select ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE if EXECMEM >> >> Above statement seems to be selecting EXECMEM as well but the intent seems >> to be a dependency check instead! OR arch selection for a config brings in >> all its dependencies as well. >> >> If the selection is always, should this change be like the following ? >> >> config ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE >> bool >> selects EXECMEM > > This is wrong. What ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE means is that, _if_ EXECMEM > is enabled, the arch code require its late initialisation. Currently for Which implies that even if ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE is only applicable when EXECMEM is enabled, there is no real dependence on the later for platforms that need a certain init behaviour. > arm64 EXECMEM is selected by KPROBES, BPF_JIT and MODULES. So if you EXECMEM gets enabled from the above, not via ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE as I had anticipated earlier. > don't have any of these on, you don't need EXECMEM either, no point in > selecting it above just because arm64 wants a specific behaviour (late > initialisation) for EXECMEM. Right, specific behaviour preference for a function on a platform should not necessarily pull in that function itself. > > If you do want a patch for this, I think for arm64 we simply need to > select ARCH_WANTS_EXECMEM_LATE unconditionally. Not much use in having > any dependencies really, it just adds to the clutter. And don't change > the core Kconfig either. Sure, will do.
