- Kernel - mailweb.openeuler.org

[openeuler:openEuler-1.0-LTS 1420/1420] mm/mem_reliable.c:401:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_pagecache_max_bytes_write' was not declared. Should it be static?
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git openEuler-1.0-LTS head: cc7cb040bd0afe96f1da94c9f21eda5a986510a5 commit: 6943b93b464351cbc35aa002e86bac48e08b1c3f [1420/1420] mm: add support for limiting the usage of reliable memory in pagecache config: arm64-randconfig-r131-20250208 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502092339.Fe6S9ctM-lkp@…) compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0 reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502092339.Fe6S9ctM-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502092339.Fe6S9ctM-lkp@intel.com/ sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) mm/mem_reliable.c:39:1: sparse: sparse: symbol '__pcpu_scope_pagecache_reliable_pages' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/mem_reliable.c:67:14: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer mm/mem_reliable.c:250:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_limit_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/mem_reliable.c:323:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_debug_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/mem_reliable.c:356:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_reserve_size_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/mem_reliable.c:380:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? >> mm/mem_reliable.c:401:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_pagecache_max_bytes_write' was not declared. Should it be static? >> mm/mem_reliable.c:487:14: sparse: sparse: invalid assignment: |= mm/mem_reliable.c:487:14: sparse: left side has type restricted gfp_t mm/mem_reliable.c:487:14: sparse: right side has type unsigned int mm/mem_reliable.c:491:14: sparse: sparse: invalid assignment: &= mm/mem_reliable.c:491:14: sparse: left side has type restricted gfp_t mm/mem_reliable.c:491:14: sparse: right side has type unsigned int mm/mem_reliable.c:250:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_limit_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 250 | int reliable_limit_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/mem_reliable.c:323:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_debug_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 323 | int reliable_debug_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/mem_reliable.c:356:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_reserve_size_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 356 | int reliable_reserve_size_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/mem_reliable.c:380:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 380 | int reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/mem_reliable.c:401:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_pagecache_max_bytes_write' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 401 | int reliable_pagecache_max_bytes_write(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ vim +/reliable_pagecache_max_bytes_write +401 mm/mem_reliable.c 400 > 401 int reliable_pagecache_max_bytes_write(struct ctl_table *table, int write, 402 void __user *buffer, size_t *length, loff_t *ppos) 403 { 404 unsigned long old_value = reliable_pagecache_max_bytes; 405 int ret; 406 407 ret = proc_doulongvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, length, ppos); 408 if (!ret && write) { 409 if (reliable_pagecache_max_bytes > total_reliable_mem_sz()) { 410 reliable_pagecache_max_bytes = old_value; 411 return -EINVAL; 412 } 413 } 414 415 return ret; 416 } 417 418 static struct ctl_table reliable_ctl_table[] = { 419 { 420 .procname = "task_reliable_limit", 421 .data = &task_reliable_limit, 422 .maxlen = sizeof(task_reliable_limit), 423 .mode = 0644, 424 .proc_handler = reliable_limit_handler, 425 }, 426 { 427 .procname = "reliable_debug", 428 .data = &mem_reliable_ctrl_bits, 429 .maxlen = sizeof(mem_reliable_ctrl_bits), 430 .mode = 0600, 431 .proc_handler = reliable_debug_handler, 432 }, 433 { 434 .procname = "reliable_reserve_size", 435 .data = &sysctl_reliable_reserve_size, 436 .maxlen = sizeof(sysctl_reliable_reserve_size), 437 .mode = 0644, 438 .proc_handler = reliable_reserve_size_handler, 439 }, 440 #ifdef CONFIG_SHMEM 441 { 442 .procname = "shmem_reliable_bytes_limit", 443 .data = &sysctl_shmem_reliable_bytes_limit, 444 .maxlen = sizeof(sysctl_shmem_reliable_bytes_limit), 445 .mode = 0644, 446 .proc_handler = reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler, 447 }, 448 #endif 449 { 450 .procname = "reliable_pagecache_max_bytes", 451 .data = &reliable_pagecache_max_bytes, 452 .maxlen = sizeof(reliable_pagecache_max_bytes), 453 .mode = 0644, 454 .proc_handler = reliable_pagecache_max_bytes_write, 455 .extra1 = &zero, 456 }, 457 {} 458 }; 459 460 static struct ctl_table reliable_dir_table[] = { 461 { 462 .procname = "vm", 463 .maxlen = 0, 464 .mode = 0555, 465 .child = reliable_ctl_table, 466 }, 467 {} 468 }; 469 470 void page_cache_prepare_alloc(gfp_t *gfp) 471 { 472 long nr_reliable = 0; 473 int cpu; 474 475 if (!mem_reliable_is_enabled()) 476 return; 477 478 for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) 479 nr_reliable += this_cpu_read(pagecache_reliable_pages); 480 481 if (nr_reliable < 0) 482 goto no_reliable; 483 484 if (nr_reliable > reliable_pagecache_max_bytes >> PAGE_SHIFT) 485 goto no_reliable; 486 > 487 *gfp |= ___GFP_RELIABILITY; 488 return; 489 490 no_reliable: 491 *gfp &= ~___GFP_RELIABILITY; 492 } 493 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0

[openeuler:openEuler-1.0-LTS 1420/1420] mm/mem_reliable.c:349:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler' was not declared. Should it be static?
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git openEuler-1.0-LTS head: cc7cb040bd0afe96f1da94c9f21eda5a986510a5 commit: 7a36955e5c8808a4b45d826a127e136c97f2a6f8 [1420/1420] mm: Introduce shmem mirrored memory limit for memory reliable config: arm64-randconfig-r131-20250208 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502092233.9edRdxQm-lkp@…) compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0 reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502092233.9edRdxQm-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502092233.9edRdxQm-lkp@intel.com/ sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) mm/mem_reliable.c:63:14: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer mm/mem_reliable.c:219:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_limit_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/mem_reliable.c:292:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_debug_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/mem_reliable.c:325:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_reserve_size_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? >> mm/mem_reliable.c:349:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/mem_reliable.c:219:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_limit_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 219 | int reliable_limit_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/mem_reliable.c:292:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_debug_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 292 | int reliable_debug_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/mem_reliable.c:325:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_reserve_size_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 325 | int reliable_reserve_size_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/mem_reliable.c:349:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 349 | int reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ vim +/reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler +349 mm/mem_reliable.c 348 > 349 int reliable_shmem_bytes_limit_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, 350 void __user *buffer, size_t *length, loff_t *ppos) 351 { 352 unsigned long *data_ptr = (unsigned long *)(table->data); 353 unsigned long old = *data_ptr; 354 int ret; 355 356 ret = proc_doulongvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, length, ppos); 357 if (ret == 0 && write) { 358 if (*data_ptr > total_reliable_mem_sz()) { 359 *data_ptr = old; 360 return -EINVAL; 361 } 362 363 shmem_reliable_nr_page = *data_ptr >> PAGE_SHIFT; 364 } 365 366 return ret; 367 } 368 #endif 369 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0

[openeuler:openEuler-1.0-LTS 1420/1420] mm/mem_reliable.c:272:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_debug_handler' was not declared. Should it be static?
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git openEuler-1.0-LTS head: cc7cb040bd0afe96f1da94c9f21eda5a986510a5 commit: 851a3ff0b4de68403c9a344c3d5378aa590705b7 [1420/1420] mm: Introduce proc interface to control memory reliable features config: arm64-randconfig-r131-20250208 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502092003.Ptadb8Sw-lkp@…) compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0 reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502092003.Ptadb8Sw-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502092003.Ptadb8Sw-lkp@intel.com/ sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) mm/mem_reliable.c:52:14: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer mm/mem_reliable.c:199:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_limit_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? >> mm/mem_reliable.c:272:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_debug_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/mem_reliable.c:199:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_limit_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 199 | int reliable_limit_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/mem_reliable.c:272:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_debug_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 272 | int reliable_debug_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ vim +/reliable_debug_handler +272 mm/mem_reliable.c 271 > 272 int reliable_debug_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, 273 void __user *buffer, size_t *length, loff_t *ppos) 274 { 275 unsigned long old_ctrl_bits, new_ctrl_bits; 276 static DEFINE_MUTEX(reliable_debug_mutex); 277 int ret; 278 279 mutex_lock(&reliable_debug_mutex); 280 old_ctrl_bits = mem_reliable_ctrl_bits; 281 ret = proc_doulongvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, length, ppos); 282 if (ret == 0 && write) { 283 if (mem_reliable_ctrl_bits > (1 << CTRL_BITS_SHIFT) - 1) { 284 mem_reliable_ctrl_bits = old_ctrl_bits; 285 mutex_unlock(&reliable_debug_mutex); 286 287 return -EINVAL; 288 } 289 290 new_ctrl_bits = mem_reliable_ctrl_bits; 291 mem_reliable_ctrl_bits = old_ctrl_bits; 292 if (!!test_bit(MEM_RELIABLE_ALL, &new_ctrl_bits)) 293 mem_reliable_parse_ctrl_bits(new_ctrl_bits); 294 else 295 mem_reliable_disable_all(); 296 } 297 298 mutex_unlock(&reliable_debug_mutex); 299 300 return ret; 301 } 302 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0

[openeuler:openEuler-1.0-LTS 1420/1420] mm/shmem.c:1601:19: sparse: sparse: invalid assignment: |=
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git openEuler-1.0-LTS head: cc7cb040bd0afe96f1da94c9f21eda5a986510a5 commit: 3a3a1f75d885bc1d1a25bb753dd2cf9111c457f7 [1420/1420] shmem: Introduce shmem reliable config: arm64-randconfig-r131-20250208 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091809.4Ney4Px5-lkp@…) compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0 reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091809.4Ney4Px5-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502091809.4Ney4Px5-lkp@intel.com/ sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) mm/shmem.c:688:9: sparse: sparse: self-comparison always evaluates to false >> mm/shmem.c:1601:19: sparse: sparse: invalid assignment: |= mm/shmem.c:1601:19: sparse: left side has type restricted gfp_t mm/shmem.c:1601:19: sparse: right side has type unsigned int mm/shmem.c: note: in included file (through include/linux/percpu_counter.h, include/linux/quota.h, include/linux/fs.h): include/linux/gfp.h:457:34: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer vim +1601 mm/shmem.c 1595 1596 static inline void shmem_prepare_alloc(gfp_t *gfp_mask) 1597 { 1598 if (!shmem_reliable_is_enabled()) 1599 return; 1600 > 1601 *gfp_mask |= ___GFP_RELIABILITY; 1602 } 1603 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0

[openeuler:openEuler-1.0-LTS 1420/1420] mm/mem_reliable.c:126:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_limit_handler' was not declared. Should it be static?
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git openEuler-1.0-LTS head: cc7cb040bd0afe96f1da94c9f21eda5a986510a5 commit: 1845e7add95773a24019fb72bbea24a0a568663b [1420/1420] mm: Add reliable memory use limit for user tasks config: arm64-randconfig-r131-20250208 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091601.sH0xhPOM-lkp@…) compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0 reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091601.sH0xhPOM-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502091601.sH0xhPOM-lkp@intel.com/ sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) >> mm/mem_reliable.c:126:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'reliable_limit_handler' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/mem_reliable.c:126:5: warning: no previous prototype for 'reliable_limit_handler' [-Wmissing-prototypes] 126 | int reliable_limit_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ vim +/reliable_limit_handler +126 mm/mem_reliable.c 124 125 #ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL > 126 int reliable_limit_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, 127 void __user *buffer, size_t *length, loff_t *ppos) 128 { 129 unsigned long old = task_reliable_limit; 130 int ret; 131 132 ret = proc_doulongvec_minmax(table, write, buffer, length, ppos); 133 if (ret == 0 && write) { 134 if (task_reliable_limit > total_reliable_mem_sz()) { 135 task_reliable_limit = old; 136 return -EINVAL; 137 } 138 } 139 140 return ret; 141 } 142 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0

[openeuler:openEuler-1.0-LTS 1420/1420] include/linux/mem_reliable.h:41:15: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git openEuler-1.0-LTS head: cc7cb040bd0afe96f1da94c9f21eda5a986510a5 commit: 33d1f46ad98ea3a13752a6360d97732ab4e119b9 [1420/1420] mm: Introduce memory reliable config: arm64-randconfig-r131-20250208 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091527.Cexj3y4I-lkp@…) compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0 reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091527.Cexj3y4I-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502091527.Cexj3y4I-lkp@intel.com/ sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) mm/page_alloc.c:140:1: sparse: sparse: symbol 'pcpu_drain_mutex' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/page_alloc.c:141:1: sparse: sparse: symbol '__pcpu_scope_pcpu_drain' was not declared. Should it be static? mm/page_alloc.c: note: in included file (through include/linux/mm.h): >> include/linux/mem_reliable.h:41:15: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer mm/page_alloc.c:4572:13: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer mm/page_alloc.c:4573:27: sparse: sparse: invalid assignment: |= mm/page_alloc.c:4573:27: sparse: left side has type restricted gfp_t mm/page_alloc.c:4573:27: sparse: right side has type unsigned int mm/page_alloc.c: note: in included file (through include/linux/mm.h): include/linux/gfp.h:457:34: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer include/linux/gfp.h:324:27: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer include/linux/gfp.h:324:27: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer include/linux/gfp.h:457:34: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer include/linux/gfp.h:457:34: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer mm/page_alloc.c: In function 'mem_init_print_info': mm/page_alloc.c:7373:27: warning: comparison between two arrays [-Warray-compare] 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 20- | ^~ mm/page_alloc.c:7377:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7377 | adj_init_size(__init_begin, __init_end, init_data_size, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:27: note: use '&__init_begin[0] <= &_sinittext[0]' to compare the addresses 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 26- | ^~ mm/page_alloc.c:7377:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7377 | adj_init_size(__init_begin, __init_end, init_data_size, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:41: warning: comparison between two arrays [-Warray-compare] 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 32- | ^ mm/page_alloc.c:7377:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7377 | adj_init_size(__init_begin, __init_end, init_data_size, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:41: note: use '&_sinittext[0] < &__init_end[0]' to compare the addresses 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 38- | ^ mm/page_alloc.c:7377:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7377 | adj_init_size(__init_begin, __init_end, init_data_size, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:27: warning: comparison between two arrays [-Warray-compare] 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 44- | ^~ mm/page_alloc.c:7379:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7379 | adj_init_size(_stext, _etext, codesize, _sinittext, init_code_size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:27: note: use '&_stext[0] <= &_sinittext[0]' to compare the addresses 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 50- | ^~ mm/page_alloc.c:7379:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7379 | adj_init_size(_stext, _etext, codesize, _sinittext, init_code_size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:41: warning: comparison between two arrays [-Warray-compare] 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 56- | ^ mm/page_alloc.c:7379:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7379 | adj_init_size(_stext, _etext, codesize, _sinittext, init_code_size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:41: note: use '&_sinittext[0] < &_etext[0]' to compare the addresses 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 62- | ^ mm/page_alloc.c:7379:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7379 | adj_init_size(_stext, _etext, codesize, _sinittext, init_code_size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:27: warning: comparison between two arrays [-Warray-compare] 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 68- | ^~ mm/page_alloc.c:7380:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7380 | adj_init_size(_sdata, _edata, datasize, __init_begin, init_data_size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:27: note: use '&_sdata[0] <= &__init_begin[0]' to compare the addresses 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 74- | ^~ mm/page_alloc.c:7380:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7380 | adj_init_size(_sdata, _edata, datasize, __init_begin, init_data_size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:41: warning: comparison between two arrays [-Warray-compare] 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 80- | ^ mm/page_alloc.c:7380:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7380 | adj_init_size(_sdata, _edata, datasize, __init_begin, init_data_size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:41: note: use '&__init_begin[0] < &_edata[0]' to compare the addresses 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 86- | ^ mm/page_alloc.c:7380:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7380 | adj_init_size(_sdata, _edata, datasize, __init_begin, init_data_size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:27: warning: comparison between two arrays [-Warray-compare] 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 92- | ^~ mm/page_alloc.c:7381:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7381 | adj_init_size(_stext, _etext, codesize, __start_rodata, rosize); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:27: note: use '&_stext[0] <= &__start_rodata[0]' to compare the addresses 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 98- | ^~ mm/page_alloc.c:7381:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7381 | adj_init_size(_stext, _etext, codesize, __start_rodata, rosize); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ mm/page_alloc.c:7373:41: warning: comparison between two arrays [-Warray-compare] 7373 | if (start <= pos && pos < end && size > adj) 104- | ^ mm/page_alloc.c:7381:9: note: in expansion of macro 'adj_init_size' 7381 | adj_init_size(_stext, _etext, codesize, __start_rodata, rosize); vim +41 include/linux/mem_reliable.h 31 32 static inline bool skip_none_movable_zone(gfp_t gfp, struct zoneref *z) 33 { 34 if (!mem_reliable_is_enabled()) 35 return false; 36 37 if (!current->mm || (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) 38 return false; 39 40 /* user tasks can only alloc memory from non-mirrored region */ > 41 if (!(gfp & ___GFP_RELIABILITY) && (gfp & __GFP_HIGHMEM) && 42 (gfp & __GFP_MOVABLE)) { 43 if (zonelist_zone_idx(z) < ZONE_MOVABLE) 44 return true; 45 } 46 47 return false; 48 } 49 #else 50 #define reliable_enabled 0 51 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0

[openeuler:openEuler-1.0-LTS 1421/1421] drivers/edac/skx_base.o: warning: objtool: skx_decode()+0x27b: can't find switch jump table
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git openEuler-1.0-LTS head: cc7cb040bd0afe96f1da94c9f21eda5a986510a5 commit: e34047f6dc606c123911c6db8fa424bb4a035262 [1421/1421] EDAC, skx_edac: Delete duplicated code config: x86_64-buildonly-randconfig-005-20250208 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091441.DGtT0ffE-lkp@…) compiler: clang version 19.1.3 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project ab51eccf88f5321e7c60591c5546b254b6afab99) reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091441.DGtT0ffE-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502091441.DGtT0ffE-lkp@intel.com/ All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): >> drivers/edac/skx_base.o: warning: objtool: skx_decode()+0x27b: can't find switch jump table -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0

[openeuler:openEuler-1.0-LTS 1420/1420] include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'kmask' may be used uninitialized
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

Hi Oleg, FYI, the error/warning still remains. tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git openEuler-1.0-LTS head: cc7cb040bd0afe96f1da94c9f21eda5a986510a5 commit: b77633c8236f2383f8d994249b40ed1bd3d012c0 [1420/1420] signal: simplify set_user_sigmask/restore_user_sigmask config: arm64-randconfig-r131-20250208 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091307.JeeYzeRI-lkp@…) compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0 reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091307.JeeYzeRI-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502091307.JeeYzeRI-lkp@intel.com/ Note: it may well be a FALSE warning. FWIW you are at least aware of it now. http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): include/linux/compat.h:499:9: note: here 499 | case 3: v.sig[5] = (set->sig[2] >> 32); v.sig[4] = set->sig[2]; | ^~~~ include/linux/compat.h:499:58: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] 499 | case 3: v.sig[5] = (set->sig[2] >> 32); v.sig[4] = set->sig[2]; | ~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compat.h:500:9: note: here 500 | case 2: v.sig[3] = (set->sig[1] >> 32); v.sig[2] = set->sig[1]; | ^~~~ include/linux/compat.h:500:58: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] 500 | case 2: v.sig[3] = (set->sig[1] >> 32); v.sig[2] = set->sig[1]; | ~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/compat.h:501:9: note: here 501 | case 1: v.sig[1] = (set->sig[0] >> 32); v.sig[0] = set->sig[0]; | ^~~~ In file included from include/asm-generic/termios.h:6, from ./arch/arm64/include/generated/uapi/asm/termios.h:1, from include/uapi/linux/termios.h:6, from include/linux/tty.h:7, from kernel/signal.c:23: In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from '__do_sys_sigaltstack' at kernel/signal.c:3635:13, inlined from '__se_sys_sigaltstack' at kernel/signal.c:3631:1: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'new' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In file included from include/linux/compiler.h:251, from include/asm-generic/bug.h:5, from arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h:37, from include/linux/bug.h:5, from include/linux/mmdebug.h:5, from include/linux/gfp.h:5, from include/linux/slab.h:15, from kernel/signal.c:13: include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function '__se_sys_sigaltstack': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:3633:17: note: 'new' declared here 3633 | stack_t new, old; | ^~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from 'do_compat_sigaltstack' at kernel/signal.c:3678:7: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'uss32' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function 'do_compat_sigaltstack': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:3677:32: note: 'uss32' declared here 3677 | compat_stack_t uss32; | ^~~~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from '__do_sys_rt_tgsigqueueinfo' at kernel/signal.c:3496:6, inlined from '__se_sys_rt_tgsigqueueinfo' at kernel/signal.c:3491:1: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'info' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function '__se_sys_rt_tgsigqueueinfo': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:3494:19: note: 'info' declared here 3494 | siginfo_t info; | ^~~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from '__do_sys_rt_sigqueueinfo' at kernel/signal.c:3454:6, inlined from '__se_sys_rt_sigqueueinfo' at kernel/signal.c:3450:1: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'info' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function '__se_sys_rt_sigqueueinfo': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:3453:19: note: 'info' declared here 3453 | siginfo_t info; | ^~~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from '__do_sys_sigprocmask' at kernel/signal.c:3783:7, inlined from '__se_sys_sigprocmask' at kernel/signal.c:3774:1: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'new_set' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function '__se_sys_sigprocmask': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:3777:31: note: 'new_set' declared here 3777 | old_sigset_t old_set, new_set; | ^~~~~~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from 'set_user_sigmask' at kernel/signal.c:2836:6: >> include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'kmask' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function 'set_user_sigmask': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:2830:18: note: 'kmask' declared here 2830 | sigset_t kmask; | ^~~~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from '__do_sys_rt_sigprocmask' at kernel/signal.c:2887:7, inlined from '__se_sys_rt_sigprocmask' at kernel/signal.c:2874:1, inlined from '__arm64_sys_rt_sigprocmask' at kernel/signal.c:2874:1: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'new_set' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function '__arm64_sys_rt_sigprocmask': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:2877:27: note: 'new_set' declared here 2877 | sigset_t old_set, new_set; | ^~~~~~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from '__do_sys_rt_sigtimedwait' at kernel/signal.c:3281:6, inlined from '__se_sys_rt_sigtimedwait' at kernel/signal.c:3268:1: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'these' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function '__se_sys_rt_sigtimedwait': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:3272:18: note: 'these' declared here 3272 | sigset_t these; | ^~~~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from 'copy_siginfo_from_user32' at kernel/signal.c:3125:6: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'from' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function 'copy_siginfo_from_user32': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:3123:31: note: 'from' declared here 3123 | struct compat_siginfo from; | ^~~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from 'restore_altstack' at kernel/signal.c:3648:6: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'new' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function 'restore_altstack': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:3647:17: note: 'new' declared here 3647 | stack_t new; | ^~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from '__do_sys_rt_sigaction' at kernel/signal.c:3834:13, inlined from '__se_sys_rt_sigaction' at kernel/signal.c:3822:1, inlined from '__arm64_sys_rt_sigaction' at kernel/signal.c:3822:1: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'new_sa' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function '__arm64_sys_rt_sigaction': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:3827:28: note: 'new_sa' declared here 3827 | struct k_sigaction new_sa, old_sa; | ^~~~~~ In function '_copy_from_user', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:144:7, inlined from '__do_sys_rt_sigsuspend' at kernel/signal.c:4053:6, inlined from '__se_sys_rt_sigsuspend' at kernel/signal.c:4045:1, inlined from '__arm64_sys_rt_sigsuspend' at kernel/signal.c:4045:1: include/linux/uaccess.h:112:17: warning: 'newset' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 112 | kasan_check_write(to, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/kasan-checks.h: In function '__arm64_sys_rt_sigsuspend': include/linux/kasan-checks.h:7:6: note: by argument 1 of type 'const volatile void *' to 'kasan_check_write' declared here 7 | void kasan_check_write(const volatile void *p, unsigned int size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kernel/signal.c:4047:18: note: 'newset' declared here 4047 | sigset_t newset; | ^~~~~~ vim +/kmask +112 include/linux/uaccess.h d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 104 d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 105 #ifdef INLINE_COPY_FROM_USER d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 106 static inline unsigned long d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 107 _copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n) d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 108 { d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 109 unsigned long res = n; 9c5f6908de03a4 Al Viro 2017-06-29 110 might_fault(); 4983cb67a383a7 Linus Torvalds 2019-02-14 111 if (likely(access_ok(from, n))) { 9c5f6908de03a4 Al Viro 2017-06-29 @112 kasan_check_write(to, n); d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 113 res = raw_copy_from_user(to, from, n); 9c5f6908de03a4 Al Viro 2017-06-29 114 } d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 115 if (unlikely(res)) d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 116 memset(to + (n - res), 0, res); d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 117 return res; d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 118 } d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 119 #else d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 120 extern unsigned long d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 121 _copy_from_user(void *, const void __user *, unsigned long); d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 122 #endif d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 123 d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 124 #ifdef INLINE_COPY_TO_USER d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 125 static inline unsigned long d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 126 _copy_to_user(void __user *to, const void *from, unsigned long n) d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 127 { 9c5f6908de03a4 Al Viro 2017-06-29 128 might_fault(); 4983cb67a383a7 Linus Torvalds 2019-02-14 129 if (access_ok(to, n)) { 9c5f6908de03a4 Al Viro 2017-06-29 130 kasan_check_read(from, n); d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 131 n = raw_copy_to_user(to, from, n); 9c5f6908de03a4 Al Viro 2017-06-29 132 } d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 133 return n; d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 134 } d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 135 #else d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 136 extern unsigned long d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 137 _copy_to_user(void __user *, const void *, unsigned long); d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 138 #endif d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 139 d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 140 static __always_inline unsigned long __must_check d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 141 copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n) d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 142 { b0377fedb65280 Al Viro 2017-06-29 143 if (likely(check_copy_size(to, n, false))) d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 @144 n = _copy_from_user(to, from, n); d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 145 return n; d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 146 } d597580d373774 Al Viro 2017-03-20 147 :::::: The code at line 112 was first introduced by commit :::::: 9c5f6908de03a4f52ba7364b11fcd6116225480c copy_{from,to}_user(): move kasan checks and might_fault() out-of-line :::::: TO: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> :::::: CC: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0

[openeuler:OLK-5.10 2732/2732] kismet: WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for TASK_PLACEMENT_BY_CPU_RANGE when selected by BPF_SCHED
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git OLK-5.10 head: 263072f655dcd6fd63f7d5dd1f9c5553134982fa commit: f23e7844132b626800d06e42d09e2ffe241c51cc [2732/2732] sched: Introduce CONFIG_TASK_PLACEMENT_BY_CPU_RANGE config: arm64-kismet-CONFIG_TASK_PLACEMENT_BY_CPU_RANGE-CONFIG_BPF_SCHED-0-0 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091108.0W1jorJu-lkp@…) reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502091108.0W1jorJu-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502091108.0W1jorJu-lkp@intel.com/ kismet warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) >> kismet: WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for TASK_PLACEMENT_BY_CPU_RANGE when selected by BPF_SCHED WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for TASK_PLACEMENT_BY_CPU_RANGE Depends on [n]: CGROUPS [=n] Selected by [y]: - BPF_SCHED [=y] && BPF_EVENTS [=y] && BPF_SYSCALL [=y] -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0

[openeuler:OLK-5.10 2732/2732] kismet: WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for BPF_NET_GLOBAL_PROG when selected by SCHED_TASK_RELATIONSHIP
by kernel test robot 09 Feb '25

09 Feb '25

tree: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel.git OLK-5.10 head: 263072f655dcd6fd63f7d5dd1f9c5553134982fa commit: 64ba5634c4c60ea966612ab3eca75cbf2d90f9bc [2732/2732] net: add some bpf hooks in tcp stack for network numa relationship config: arm64-kismet-CONFIG_BPF_NET_GLOBAL_PROG-CONFIG_SCHED_TASK_RELATIONSHIP-0-0 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502090816.X4XejMgg-lkp@…) reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250209/202502090816.X4XejMgg-lkp@…) 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(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502090816.X4XejMgg-lkp@intel.com/ kismet warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) >> kismet: WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for BPF_NET_GLOBAL_PROG when selected by SCHED_TASK_RELATIONSHIP WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for PGP_PRELOAD Depends on [n]: CRYPTO [=y] && ASYMMETRIC_KEY_TYPE [=n] Selected by [y]: - PGP_PRELOAD_PUBLIC_KEYS [=y] && CRYPTO [=y] WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for BPF_NET_GLOBAL_PROG Depends on [n]: NET [=n] && BPF_SYSCALL [=n] Selected by [y]: - SCHED_TASK_RELATIONSHIP [=y] && CGROUPS [=y] && NUMA_BALANCING [=y] -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

1 0