Re: [PATCH v2] Fix linux-starfive build under sid

[Uladzimir Bely <ubely@ilbers.de>]

On Fri, 2024-10-04 at 12:27 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 04.10.24 12:22, 'Jan Kiszka' via isar-users wrote:
> > On 04.10.24 11:43, Uladzimir Bely wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2024-10-04 at 10:38 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > On 04.10.24 10:17, Uladzimir Bely wrote:
> > > > > The patch is taken from the linux kernel upstream >= 6.8.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Uladzimir Bely <ubely@ilbers.de>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  ...oc-arguments-order-in-btrfs_ioctl_se.patch | 43
> > > > > +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  .../linux/linux-starfive_6.6-visionfive2.bb   |  1 +
> > > > >  2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 meta-isar/recipes-
> > > > > kernel/linux/files/0001-
> > > > > btrfs-fix-kvcalloc-arguments-order-in-btrfs_ioctl_se.patch
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changes since v1 (Fix linux build under sid and trixie):
> > > > > 
> > > > > - Since we don't build linux-mainline/linux-phy kernels for
> > > > > trixie/sid
> > > > > apply kernel patch only for linux-starfive_6.6-visionfive2
> > > > > target.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I additionally checked [1] for existing branches and can
> > > > > conclude:
> > > > >  - recent 6.6-based branch "JH7110_VisionFive2_upstream" is
> > > > > still
> > > > > affected and requires the patch
> > > > >  - recent "starfive-tech/visionfive" is 6.10-based already
> > > > > includes
> > > > > the fix, but using it leads to different build errors. Also,
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > not
> > > > > sure if it properly supports "VisionFive2" board.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, for now, the simplest way to fix build error we have in
> > > > > CI is
> > > > > to
> > > > > just apply upstream patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/starfive-tech/linux
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/meta-isar/recipes-kernel/linux/files/0001-btrfs-
> > > > > fix-
> > > > > kvcalloc-arguments-order-in-btrfs_ioctl_se.patch b/meta-
> > > > > isar/recipes-kernel/linux/files/0001-btrfs-fix-kvcalloc-
> > > > > arguments-
> > > > > order-in-btrfs_ioctl_se.patch
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 00000000..afe09eab
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/meta-isar/recipes-kernel/linux/files/0001-btrfs-fix-
> > > > > kvcalloc-
> > > > > arguments-order-in-btrfs_ioctl_se.patch
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > > > > +From 6ff09b6b8c2fb6b3edda4ffaa173153a40653067 Mon Sep 17
> > > > > 00:00:00
> > > > > 2001
> > > > > +From: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@yandex.ru>
> > > > > +Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 11:47:45 +0300
> > > > > +Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix kvcalloc() arguments order in
> > > > > btrfs_ioctl_send()
> > > > > +
> > > > > +When compiling with gcc version 14.0.0 20231220
> > > > > (experimental)
> > > > > +and W=1, I've noticed the following warning:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +fs/btrfs/send.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_send':
> > > > > +fs/btrfs/send.c:8208:44: warning: 'kvcalloc' sizes specified
> > > > > with
> > > > > 'sizeof'
> > > > > +in the earlier argument and not in the later argument [-
> > > > > Wcalloc-
> > > > > transposed-args]
> > > > > + 8208 |         sctx->clone_roots = kvcalloc(sizeof(*sctx-
> > > > > > clone_roots),
> > > > > +      |                                            ^
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Since 'n' and 'size' arguments of 'kvcalloc()' are
> > > > > multiplied to
> > > > > +calculate the final size, their actual order doesn't affect
> > > > > the
> > > > > result
> > > > > +and so this is not a bug. But it's still worth to fix it.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@yandex.ru>
> > > > > +Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
> > > > > +Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
> > > > > +---
> > > > > + fs/btrfs/send.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > + 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > +
> > > > > +diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
> > > > > +index 4e36550618e5..2d7519a6ce72 100644
> > > > > +--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
> > > > > ++++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
> > > > > +@@ -8205,8 +8205,8 @@ long btrfs_ioctl_send(struct inode
> > > > > *inode,
> > > > > struct btrfs_ioctl_send_args *arg)
> > > > > + 		goto out;
> > > > > + 	}
> > > > > + 
> > > > > +-	sctx->clone_roots = kvcalloc(sizeof(*sctx-
> > > > > >clone_roots),
> > > > > +-				     arg-
> > > > > >clone_sources_count + 1,
> > > > > ++	sctx->clone_roots = kvcalloc(arg-
> > > > > >clone_sources_count + 1,
> > > > > ++				     sizeof(*sctx-
> > > > > >clone_roots),
> > > > > + 				     GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > + 	if (!sctx->clone_roots) {
> > > > > + 		ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +-- 
> > > > > +2.45.2
> > > > > +
> > > > > diff --git a/meta-isar/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-
> > > > > starfive_6.6-
> > > > > visionfive2.bb b/meta-isar/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-
> > > > > starfive_6.6-
> > > > > visionfive2.bb
> > > > > index f4dd5c9a..a267241f 100644
> > > > > --- a/meta-isar/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-starfive_6.6-
> > > > > visionfive2.bb
> > > > > +++ b/meta-isar/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-starfive_6.6-
> > > > > visionfive2.bb
> > > > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ require recipes-kernel/linux/linux-custom.inc
> > > > >  SRC_URI += " \
> > > > >     
> > > > > https://github.com/starfive-tech/linux/archive/${SRCREV}.tar.gz;downloadfilename=linux-starfive-${SRCREV}.tar.gz
> > > > >  \
> > > > >     
> > > > > file://0001-riscv-efistub-Ensure-GP-relative-addressing-is-not-u.patch
> > > > >  \
> > > > > +   
> > > > > file://0001-btrfs-fix-kvcalloc-arguments-order-in-btrfs_ioctl_se.patch
> > > > >  \
> > > > >      file://starfive2_extra.cfg"
> > > > >  SRCREV = "9fe004eaf1aa5b23bd5d03b4cfe9c3858bd884c4"
> > > > >  SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
> > > > > "9eaf7659aa57e2c5b399b7b33076f1376ec43ef343680e0a57e0a2a9bef6
> > > > > c0ae"
> > > > 
> > > > NACK, update the kernel. I think I already told you. May even
> > > > obsolete
> > > > the other patch.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I tried this (see the text above the diff starts). Updated
> > > 6.6-
> > > based branch still requires both patches.
> > > 
> > 
> > https://github.com/starfive-tech/linux/commits/starfive-6.6.31-dubhe
> > 
> > As I told you.
> > 
> > I'm sending the proper patch in a minute.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, seems that's the wrong tree, and
> JH7110_VisionFive2_6.6.y_devel
> was not updated properly.
> 
> But there is no way to build against sid except for using an older
> snapshot. How did you test this?
> 
> Jan
> 

I tested few branches:
- JH7110_VisionFive2_upstream - this seems to be a proper tree (at
least, it includes starfive_visionfive2_defconfig, and appropriate
devicetree files look complete). But this still has now a fix and
requires both patches
- starfive-tech/visionfive - this is based on linux-6.10, includes
both patches. But there are different build errors here and no
starfive_visionfive2_defconfig present. Also, board devicetree files
has less stuff.
- starfive-6.6.31-dubhe - this includes the patch (but not the other
one). But there is also no proper defconfig and board deficetrees are
not looking full enough.

Some tests were done in one of our CI instances where we already have
an updated version of debootstrap installed. Manual check of the build
can be also done under kas-container shell, but some additional steps
(e.g., adding bookworm-backports to source list and installing
"debootstrap/bookworm-backports") are required before running bitbake.

-- 
Best regards,
Uladzimir.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "isar-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isar-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isar-users/8a2e073548325768f995620c6d6dc5dda36bf0a5.camel%40ilbers.de.