linux-kernel - Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:18:52 +0000
From:	Matt Keenan <tank.en.mate@...il.com>
To:	Mark Miller <mark@...ell.org>
Cc:	Alejandro Mery <amery@...nsde.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Embedded Linux mailing list <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 04:30 -0600, Mark Miller wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 4:16 AM, Alejandro Mery wrote:
> 
> > Christoph Hellwig escribió:
> >> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:26:37AM +0100, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday 02 of January 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Before 2.6.25 (specifically git  
> >>>> bdc807871d58285737d50dc6163d0feb72cb0dc2 )
> >>>> building a Linux kernel never required perl to be installed on  
> >>>> the build
> >>>> system.  (Various development and debugging scripts were written  
> >>>> in perl
> >>>> and python and such, but they weren't involved in actually  
> >>>> building a
> >>>> kernel.) Building a kernel before 2.6.25 could be done with a  
> >>>> minimal
> >>>> system built from gcc, binutils, bash, make, busybox, uClibc, and  
> >>>> the Linux
> >>>> kernel, and nothing else.
> >>>>
> >>> And now bash is going to be required... while some distros don't  
> >>> need/have
> >>> bash. /bin/sh should be enough.
> >>>
> >>
> >> *nod*  bash is in many ways a worse requirement than perl.  strict  
> >> posix
> >> /bin/sh + awk + sed would be nicest, but if that's too much work perl
> >> seems reasonable.
> 
> >>
> > well, bash is not worse as bash is trivial to cross-compile to run  
> > on a
> > constrained sandbox and perl is a nightmare, but I agree bash should  
> > be
> > avoided too.
> >
> > I think the $(( ... )) bash-ism can be replaced with a simple .c  
> > helper toy.
> >
> > Thank Rob for reopening the topic.
> >
> > Alejandro Mery
> 
> And actually, one of the things that I just recalled, is that several  
> of the Perl configure scripts in order to actually build itself, rely  
> on Bourne shell calls. So the argument to require a strict POSIX+sed 
> +awk implementation rather than Perl to build the kernel, fails, since  
> you already require some variant of shell greater than strict POSIX / 
> bin/sh to build Perl. So this is one less dependency.
> 
> Also, attempting to cross-compile Perl, is indeed a nightmare.
> 

Having cross compiled Perl, on to a Unix with a brain dead third party
TCP/IP no less, only 4 years after starting to use Unix / Linux I can
attest that it is not that difficult to cross compile. Heck it even runs
on those weird Crays that don't know which byte sex they are.

Matt


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/