linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: Support compiling out human-friendly processor feature names

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:	Sun, 23 Feb 2014 13:44:20 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
CC:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@....fi>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: Support compiling out human-friendly processor
 feature names

On 02/23/2014 01:32 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 
> Because, in order to un-break the build, v3 wraps an ifdef around that
> dependency, to prevent building cpustr.h.  Otherwise, the rule for
> cpustr.h tries and fails to build mkcpustr.
> 

Why did it fail to build mkcpustr?  It would seem that mkcpustr is or at
least ought to be completely agnostic to any of these options.

The extra build machinery here seems completely pointless.

I agree that the #ifdef isn't a big deal, but all this extra machinery
really indicates something is odd.

Oh, and of course, looking at the v2 patchset, the problem is the ifdef
around the mkcapflags shell script which really shouldn't be necessary.
 We may have to add a rule to force capflags.c to be built even if
capflags.o is not requested, but that is fine.

That will cut down on the Makefile hacks considerably, and will avoid
this problem completely.

	-hpa

--
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/