linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: Allow specifying some base host CFLAGS

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK7LNATuXbi_X_q5-jJkETJvuPmcQs2ZUHsKqgOC+ATC=v=z9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:44:58 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Mike Frysinger <vapier@...omium.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: Allow specifying some base host CFLAGS

Hi Douglous

2017-10-20 14:06 GMT+09:00 Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>> 2017-10-14 3:02 GMT+09:00 Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>:
>>> Right now there is a way to add some CFLAGS that affect target builds,
>>> but no way to add CFLAGS that affect host builds.  Let's add a way.
>>> We'll document two environment variables: CFLAGS_HOST and
>>> CXXFLAGS_HOST.
>>>
>>> We'll document that these variables get appended to by the kernel to
>>> make the final CFLAGS.  That means that, though the environment can
>>> specify some flags, if there is a conflict the kernel can override and
>>> win.  This works differently than KCFLAGS which is appended (and thus
>>> can override) the kernel specified CFLAGS.
>>>
>>> Why would I make KCFLAGS and CFLAGS_HOST work differently in this way?
>>> My argument is that it's about expected usage.  Typically the build
>>> system invoking the kernel has some idea about some basic CFLAGS that
>>> it wants to use to build things for the host and things for the
>>> target.  In general the build system would expect that its flags can
>>> be overridden if necessary (perhaps we need to turn off a warning when
>>> compiling a certain file, for instance).  So, all other things being
>>> equal, the way I'm making CFLAGS_HOST is the way I'd expect things to
>>> work.
>>>
>>> So, if it's expected that the build system can pass in a base set of
>>> flags, why didn't we make KCFLAGS work that way?  The short answer is:
>>> when building for the target the kernel is just "special".  The build
>>> system's "target" CFLAGS are likely intended for userspace programs
>>> and likely make very little sense to use as a basis.  This was talked
>>> about in the seminal commit 69ee0b352242 ("kbuild: do not pick up
>>> CFLAGS from the environment").  Basically: if the build system REALLY
>>> knows what it's doing then it can pass in flags that the kernel will
>>> use, but otherwise it should butt out.  Presumably this build system
>>> that really knows what it's doing knows better than the kernel so
>>> KCFLAGS comes after the kernel's normal flags.
>>>
>>> One last note: I chose to add new variables rather than just having
>>> the build system try to pass HOSTCFLAGS in somehow (either through the
>>> environment or the command line) to avoid weird interactions with
>>> recursive invocations of make.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>>> ---
>>
>> I'd like to know for-instance cases where this is useful.
>
> I'm not sure I have any exact use cases.  I know vapier@ (CCed) was
> pushing for making sure that these flags get passed from the portage
> ebuild into the kernel build, so maybe he has some cases?  Right now
> we have the "-pipe" flag that ought to be passed in to the host
> compiler but we're dropping it on the floor, but that doesn't seem
> terribly critical.
>
> ...but in general the Linux kernel doesn't have all the details about
> the host system.  That means it can't necessarily build the tools
> quite as optimally (it can't pass "-mtune, right?).  I could also
> imagine that there could be ABI flags that need to be specified?  Like
> if we had floating point math in a host tool it would be important
> that the build system could tell the kernel what to use for
> "-mfloat-abi".
>
> ...so basically: it's all theoretical at this point in time from my
> point of view, but I can definitely understand how it could be
> necessary in the right environment.


I get your point.

My concern is kbuild already supports various *FLAGS.

The reason for the missing optional host flags
is probably people have less interest in host-tool optimization.

Once we support a new FLAGS, it is hard to change/remove it.

I will wait more in case other people may want to say something to this.

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada