On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:10 AM Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 04:46:15PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > How about this one: > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c > > index 3d8d70d3896c..0ce15807cf54 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c > > @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ > > #undef __SYSCALL_X32 > > #undef __SYSCALL_COMMON > > > > +#define __x32_sys_execve __x64_sys_execve > > +#define __x32_sys_execveat __x64_sys_execveat > > + > > > arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c:19:26: error: ‘__x64_sys_execve’ undeclared here > (not in a function); did you mean ‘__x32_sys_execve’? > 19 | #define __x32_sys_execve __x64_sys_execve > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c:22:39: note: in expansion of macro > ‘__x32_sys_execve’ > 22 | #define __SYSCALL_X32(nr, sym) [nr] = __x32_##sym, > | ^~~~~~ > ./arch/x86/include/generated/asm/syscalls_64.h:344:1: note: in expansion of > macro ‘__SYSCALL_X32’ > 344 | __SYSCALL_X32(520, sys_execve) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c:20:28: error: ‘__x64_sys_execveat’ undeclared > here (not in a function); did you mean ‘__x32_sys_execveat’? > 20 | #define __x32_sys_execveat __x64_sys_execveat > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c:22:39: note: in expansion of macro > ‘__x32_sys_execveat’ > 22 | #define __SYSCALL_X32(nr, sym) [nr] = __x32_##sym, > | ^~~~~~ > ./arch/x86/include/generated/asm/syscalls_64.h:369:1: note: in expansion of > macro ‘__SYSCALL_X32’ > 369 | __SYSCALL_X32(545, sys_execveat) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:281: arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.o] Error > 1 > make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:497: arch/x86/entry] Error 2 > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > kernel/exit.o: warning: objtool: __x64_sys_exit_group()+0x14: unreachable > instruction > make: *** [Makefile:1764: arch/x86] Error 2 > make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
If you move those aliases above all the __SYSCALL_* defines it will work, since that will get the forward declaration too. This would be the simplest workaround. -- Brian Gerst
