linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] samples/bpf: Add a .gitignore for binaries

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:   Tue, 16 May 2017 16:27:36 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] samples/bpf: Add a .gitignore for binaries

On 5/13/17 3:30 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> 
> On 13/02/2017 02:43, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 2/12/17 2:23 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>> diff --git a/samples/bpf/.gitignore b/samples/bpf/.gitignore
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..a7562a5ef4c2
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/samples/bpf/.gitignore
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
>>> +fds_example
>>> +lathist
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Listing each target is going to be a PITA to maintain. It would be
>> better to put targets into a build directory (bin?) and ignore the
>> directory.
>>
> 
> It would require a lot of modifications to the Makefile and more
> complexity. It seems much more simple for everyone to stick to a simple
> gitignore file easily maintainable:
> $ awk '$1 == "hostprogs-y" { print $3 }' < Makefile > .gitignore
> 
> Alexei, Daniel, what do you think about this? Do you want me to send a
> v2 with the new tests?
> 

The problem stems from the fact that bpf samples do not really fall into
the 'hostprogs' category (see "4 Host Program support" in
Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt). Fixing samples/bpf to not rely on
it is the better long term solution. Building of tools/ for example does
not rely on it so there is an existing example of leveraging kernel
headers without the overhead.