Song Liu <s...@kernel.org> writes: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 11:26 PM Puranjay Mohan <puran...@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> Song Liu <s...@kernel.org> writes: >> >> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:10 PM Indu Bhagat <indu.bha...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/12/25 3:32 PM, Song Liu wrote: >> >> > I run some tests with this set and my RFC set [1]. Most of >> >> > the test is done with kpatch-build. I tested both Puranjay's >> >> > version [3] and my version [4]. >> >> > >> >> > For gcc 14.2.1, I have seen the following issue with this >> >> > test [2]. This happens with both upstream and 6.13.2. >> >> > The livepatch loaded fine, but the system spilled out the >> >> > following warning quickly. >> >> > >> >> >> >> In presence of the issue >> >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32666, I'd expect bad >> >> data in SFrame section. Which may be causing this symptom? >> >> >> >> To be clear, the issue affects loaded kernel modules. I cannot tell for >> >> certain - is there module loading involved in your test ? >> > >> > The KLP is a module, I guess that is also affected? >> > >> > During kpatch-build, we added some logic to drop the .sframe section. >> > I guess this is wrong, as we need the .sframe section when we apply >> > the next KLP. However, I don't think the issue is caused by missing >> > .sframe section. >> >> Hi, I did the same testing and did not get the Warning. >> >> I am testing on the 6.12.11 kernel with GCC 11.4.1. > > Could you please also try kernel 6.13.2? > >> Just to verify, the patch we are testing is: > > Yes, this is the test patch. >> >> --- >8 --- > [...] >> --- 8< --- >> >> P.S. - I have a downstream patch for create-diff-object to generate .sframe >> sections for >> livepatch module, will add it to the PR after some cleanups. > > Yeah, I think the .sframe section is still needed. >
Hi Song, Can you try with this: https://github.com/puranjaymohan/kpatch/tree/arm64_wip This has the .sframe logic patch, but it looks as if I wrote that code in a 30 minute leetcode interview. I need to refactor it before I send it for review with the main PR. Can you test with this branch with your setup? Thanks, Puranjay
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
