(everyone else to bcc) On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 4:44 PM Philip Li <philip.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 02:43:39PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:58 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 01:10:26AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:47:38PM -0000, tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > >> The following commit has been merged into the core/objtool branch of tip: > > > > >> > > > > >> Commit-ID: 644592d328370af4b3e027b7b1ae9f81613782d8 > > > > >> Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/644592d328370af4b3e027b7b1ae9f81613782d8 > > > > >> Author: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >> AuthorDate: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:32:38 -06:00 > > > > >> Committer: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> > > > > >> CommitterDate: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:27:03 +01:00 > > > > >> > > > > >> objtool: Fail the kernel build on fatal errors > > > > >> > > > > >> When objtool encounters a fatal error, it usually means the binary is > > > > >> corrupt or otherwise broken in some way. Up until now, such errors were > > > > >> just treated as warnings which didn't fail the kernel build. > > > > >> > > > > >> However, objtool is now stable enough that if a fatal error is > > > > >> discovered, it most likely means something is seriously wrong and it > > > > >> should fail the kernel build. > > > > >> > > > > >> Note that this doesn't apply to "normal" objtool warnings; only fatal > > > > >> ones. > > > > > > > > > > Clang still has some toolchain issues which need to be sorted out, so > > > > > upgrading the fatal errors is causing their CI to fail. > > > > > > > > Good. Last time we made it fail they just fixed their stuff. > > > > > > > > > So I think we need to drop this one for now. > > > > > > > > Why? It's our decision to define which level of toolchain brokeness is > > > > tolerable. > > > > > > > > > Boris, are you able to just drop it or should I send a revert? > > > > > > > > I really want to see a revert which has a proper justification why the > > > > issues of clang are tolerable along with a clear statement when this > > > > fatal error will come back. And 'when' means a date, not 'when clang is > > > > fixed'. > > > > > > Fair enough. The root cause was actually a bug in binutils which gets > > > triggered by a new clang feature. So instead of reverting the above > > > patch, I think I've figured out a way to work around the binutils bug, > > > while also improving objtool at the same time (win-win). > > > > > > The binutils bug will be fixed in binutils 2.35. > > > > > > BTW, to be fair, this was less "Clang has issues" and more "Josh is > > > lazy". I didn't test the patch with Clang -- I tend to rely on 0-day > > > bot reports because I don't have the bandwidth to test the > > > kernel/config/toolchain combinations. Nick tells me Clang will soon be > > > integrated with the 0-day bot, which should help prevent this type of > > > thing in the future. > > > > Hi Rong, Philip, > > Do you have any status updates on turning on the 0day bot emails to > > the patch authors in production? It's been quite handy in helping us > > find issues, for the private mails we've been triaging daily. > Hi Nick, this is on our schedule in a new 2-3 weeks, sorry not to update > your in another mail loop earlier. No worries. > > What I plan to do is to cc you for the clang reports when 0-day ci sends > to kernel patch author. If you notice something may be related to clang (since > we always integrate newer clang version), you can help filter it out. How > do you think? If you would kindly cc our mailing list "clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" we'd be happy to continue to triage and provide suggestions. That level of indirection better allows us to deal with subscriptions and change of email addresses without having to disturb you. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
|