On 3/30/20 11:05 AM, KP Singh wrote: > On 30-Mar 19:54, KP Singh wrote: > > So, it looks like bpf_tracing_func_proto is only defined when > CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS is set: > > obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS) += bpf_trace.o > > We have a few options: > > * Add a __weak symbol for bpf_tracing_func_proto which we have done in > the past for similar issues. This however, does not make much sense, > as CONFIG_BPF_LSM cannot really do much without its helpers. > * Make CONFIG_BPF_LSM depend on CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS, this should solve > it, but not for this particular Kconfig that was generated. Randy, > I am assuming if we add the dependency, this particular Kconfig > won't be generated. Hi KP, That sounds reasonable. Thanks. > > I am assuming this patch now needs to be sent for "bpf" and not > "bpf-next" as the merge window has opened? > > - KP > >> Thanks for adding me Daniel, taking a look. >> >> - KP >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:25 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> [Cc KP, ptal] >>> >>> On 3/30/20 7:15 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>> On 3/30/20 2:43 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> The merge window has opened, so please do not add any material for the >>>>> next release into your linux-next included trees/branches until after >>>>> the merge window closes. >>>>> >>>>> Changes since 20200327: >>>> >>>> (note: linux-next is based on linux 5.6-rc7) >>>> >>>> >>>> on i386: >>>> >>>> ld: kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.o:(.rodata+0x0): undefined reference to `bpf_tracing_func_proto' >>>> >>>> >>>> Full randconfig file is attached. -- ~Randy
