[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ddd2ac2e-fc7e-3216-69cd-4e9a01df1958@bacher09.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 23:38:21 +0300
From: Slava Bacherikov <slava@...her09.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Liu Yiding <liuyd.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, kpsingh@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf] kbuild: fix dependencies for DEBUG_INFO_BTF
02.04.2020 23:34, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 12:31:36PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:40 AM Slava Bacherikov <slava@...her09.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 02.04.2020 18:33, Slava Bacherikov wrote:
>>>> + depends on DEBUG_INFO || COMPILE_TEST
>>>
>>> Andrii are you fine by this ?
>>
>> I think it needs a good comment explaining this weirdness, at least.
>> As I said, if there is no DEBUG_INFO, there is not point in doing
>> DWARF-to-BTF conversion, even more -- it actually might fail, I
>> haven't checked what pahole does in that case. So I'd rather drop
>> GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT is that's the issue here. DEBUG_INFO_SPLIT and
>> DEBUG_INFO_REDUCED look good.
Yesterday before sending it I tested it against latest bpf git with
allyesconfig and it compiled fine, even worked in vm ;)
>
> The DEBUG_INFO is separate, AIUI -- it sounds like BTF may entirely
> break on a compile with weird DWARF configs.
>
> The GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT issue is separate: it doesn't make sense to
> run a kernel built with BTF and GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT. But they should
> have nothing to do with each other with regard to compilation. So, to
> keep GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT disable for "real" builds but leave it on for
> all*config, randconfig, etc, I'd like to keep the || COMPILE_TEST,
> otherwise GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT won't be part of the many CIs doing
> compilation testing.
>
> And FWIW, I'm fine to let GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT and BTF build together.
> But if they want to be depends-conflicted, I wanted to keep the test
> compile trap door.
>
Oh, seems I misunderstood you, if everyone agree I'll drop it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
