linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: Build linux-tools package with 'make deb-pkg'

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: <1329448597.3258.28.camel@deadeye>
Date:	Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:16:37 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	maximilian attems <max@...o.at>,
	debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	Ubuntu kernel team <kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: Build linux-tools package with 'make
 deb-pkg'

On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 19:57 +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Also build a linux-tools package for installation so that
> common tools run without issues (e.g. perf).
> 
> [RFC note: This may break with x-compilation when the
>            x-compilation environment is not set up to
> 	   compile user-space programs. Is that acceptable?
> 	   I also thought about a compile-time parameter
> 	   such as 'make TOOLS=1 deb-pkg' or a special
> 	   'make deb-tools-pkg' target.	Opinions? ]
> 
> Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
> Cc: maximilian attems <max@...o.at>
> Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
> Cc: debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org
> Cc: linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
> ---
>  scripts/package/builddeb |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/package/builddeb b/scripts/package/builddeb
> index eee5f8e..8466380 100644
> --- a/scripts/package/builddeb
> +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb
> @@ -78,17 +78,19 @@ tmpdir="$objtree/debian/tmp"
>  fwdir="$objtree/debian/fwtmp"
>  kernel_headers_dir="$objtree/debian/hdrtmp"
>  libc_headers_dir="$objtree/debian/headertmp"
> +tools_dir="$objtree/debian/toolstmp"
>  packagename=linux-image-$version
>  fwpackagename=linux-firmware-image
>  kernel_headers_packagename=linux-headers-$version
>  libc_headers_packagename=linux-libc-dev
> +tools_packagename=linux-tools-$version

The advice I got from one of the perf developers - possibly Peter
Zijlstra - was that changes to the perf kernel interface are backward-
compatible but newer versions of the perf tool may depend on newer
kernel features.  New features involve a bump to the 2nd (at the time,
it was the 3rd) version component unless you're building from a perf
development branch.

So to avoid package proliferation the package name should be
linux-tools-$VERSION.$PATCHLEVEL and the executable filenames should be
something like perf_$VERSION.$PATCHLEVEL-$subcommand.  This is what we
do in Debian.

However, Ubuntu uses the full kernel release string (as do several
RPM-based distributions).  So at the moment you can't build a versioned
perf that's going to work in both.  But that is fixable if one of the
perf wrappers is changed to fall back to the alternate naming scheme.

[...]
> +# Build the tools
> +num_tools="0"
> +tools_flavour_abi=${version#*-}
> +tools_flavour=${tools_flavour_abi#*-}
> +tools_version=${version%-$tools_flavour}
> +if grep -q '^CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS=y' .config ; then
> +	# Build perf
> +	(
> +	 mkdir -p $objtree/tools/perf
> +	 cd "$srctree/tools/perf"
> +	 $MAKE LDFLAGS= O=$O/tools/perf
> +	 cp $objtree/tools/perf/perf "$tools_dir/usr/bin/perf_$tools_version"
[...]

What about the manual pages and scripting support?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. - Leonard Brandwein

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)