On 30-Mar 20:05, 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. > > I am assuming this patch now needs to be sent for "bpf" and not > "bpf-next" as the merge window has opened? I am wrong, I will send the patch targeted for "bpf-next" and they will be applied after merge window closes (and the -next tree opens). Apologies for the confusion. - KP > > - 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. > > > > > > >
