linux-kernel - Re: [F.A.Q.] the advantages of a shared tool/kernel Git repository, tools/perf/ and tools/kvm/

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1111082212560.8887@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date:	Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:15:01 +0100 (CET)
From:	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@...il.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [F.A.Q.] the advantages of a shared tool/kernel Git repository,
 tools/perf/ and tools/kvm/



On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Ted Ts'o wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I guess you can do well with a split project as well - my main claim 
> > is that good compatibility comes *naturally* with integration.
> 
> Here I have to disagree; my main worry is that integration makes it
> *naturally* easy for people to skip the hard work needed to keep a
> stable kernel/userspace interface.
> 
> The other worry which I've mentioned, but which I haven't seen
> addressed, is that the even if you can use a perf from a newer kernel
> with an older kernel, this causes distributions a huge amount of pain,
> since they have to package two different kernel source packages, and
> only compile perf from the newer kernel source package.  This leads to
> all sorts of confusion from a distribution packaging point of view.
> 
> For example, assume that RHEL 5, which is using 2.6.32 or something
> like that, wants to use a newer e2fsck that does a better job fixing
> file system corruptions.  If it were bundled with the kernel, then
> they would have to package up the v3.1 kernel sources, and have a
> source RPM that isn't used for building kernel sources, but just to
> build a newer version of e2fsck.  Fortunately, they don't have to do
> that.  They just pull down a newer version of e2fsprogs, and package,
> build, test, and ship that.
> 
> In addition, suppose Red Hat ships a security bug fix which means a
> new kernel-image RPM has to be shipped.  Does that mean that Red Hat
> has to ship new binary RPM's for any and all tools/* programs that
> they have packaged as separate RPM's?  Or should installing a new
> kernel RPM also imply dropping new binaries in /usr/bin/perf, et. al?
> There are all sorts of packaging questions that are raised
> integration, and from where I sit I don't think they've been
> adequately solved yet.
>
 
This in practice is not a big deal.

There are many approaches for how the RPM can be built, but basically
getting the perf source is just a matter of
make perf-tar-src-pkg or friends such as
make perf-tarbz2-src-pkg
which will create perf-3.2.0-rc1.tar, and perf-3.2.0-rc1.tar.bz2
respectively which can be used for the src rpms. This tar ball can be used
as a separate package or subpackage.

Thanks

--
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/