Hello,
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, Jinghao Jia wrote:
> On 11/18/24 6:41 AM, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, Jinghao Jia wrote:
> >
> >> Under certain kernel configurations when building with Clang/LLVM, the
> >> compiler does not generate a return or jump as the terminator
> >> instruction for ip_vs_protocol_init(), triggering the following objtool
> >> warning during build time:
> >>
> >> vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: ip_vs_protocol_init() falls through to next function __initstub__kmod_ip_vs_rr__935_123_ip_vs_rr_init6()
> >>
...
> >> This gives later passes (SCCP, in particular) to more DCE opportunities
>
> One small request: if you could help us remove the extra "to" in the above
> sentence when committing this patch, it would be great.
>
...
> > Looks good to me, thanks! I assume it is for
> > net-next/nf-next, right?
>
> I am actually not familiar with the netfilter trees. IMHO this should also be
> back-ported to the stable kernels -- I wonder if net-next/nf-next is a good
> tree for this?
Then may be it is better to send [PATCHv2 net] after fixing
the above "to" and selecting proper commit for a Fixes line (probably
the initial commit 1da177e4c3f4 ?).
> >> - char protocols[64];
> >> + char protocols[64] = { 0 };
> >> #define REGISTER_PROTOCOL(p) \
> >> do { \
> >> register_ip_vs_protocol(p); \
> >> @@ -348,8 +348,6 @@ int __init ip_vs_protocol_init(void)
> >> strcat(protocols, (p)->name); \
> >> } while (0)
> >>
> >> - protocols[0] = '\0';
> >> - protocols[2] = '\0';
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_IP_VS_PROTO_TCP
> >> REGISTER_PROTOCOL(&ip_vs_protocol_tcp);
> >> #endif
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
