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

[Uladzimir Bely <ubely@ilbers.de>]

On Fri, 2024-10-04 at 12:45 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 04.10.24 12:37, Uladzimir Bely wrote:
> > 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] =
> > > > > > > "9eaf7659aa57e2c5b399b7b33076f1376ec43ef343680e0a57e0a2a9
> > > > > > > bef6
> > > > > > > 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
> 
> Yes, it is. I've created
> https://github.com/starfive-tech/linux/issues/140 to resolve the
> problem
> "upstream" eventually.
> 
> > - 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.
> 
> That's version 1 of the VisionFive, a different board.
> 
> > - 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.
> 
> Even a different SoC that may lack patches we need. I was misled.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> You must be natively building - I don't have that much time.
> Crossbuild
> is borken once again, but the snapshot we also use in isar-cip-core
> is
> fine (but not affected by the compiler update), see my kas menu
> patch.
> 

Yes, I was building it natively for tests (as well as CI does).

Trixie/sid cross builds are currently broken (not only on riscv64).
That's another issue to solve (or, maybe, wait for upstream?).

> Anyway, ACK for this patch until upstream updated their branch.
> 
> Jan
> 

-- 
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/cdd950f591f19c08d1a63d293a8bde026cb2d67f.camel%40ilbers.de.