linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools: Remove conflicting BITS_PER

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: <e6be3495-42c8-5da6-520d-1dccefb17406@nokia.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:25:11 +0200
From:   Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
CC:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: Remove conflicting BITS_PER_LONG define

Hi!

On 19/09/2018 15:03, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> That is indeed a cross build environment I'm not regularly testing, I'm
> trying these cross builds:

Probably my assumption was wrong about cross compiler.
HOST tool fails (objtool) and it's being build by separate i686->i686 compiler.

>    9 android-ndk:r12b-arm          : Ok   arm-linux-androideabi-gcc (GCC) 4.9.x 20150123 (prerelease)
>   10 android-ndk:r15c-arm          : Ok   arm-linux-androideabi-gcc (GCC) 4.9.x 20150123 (prerelease)
>   19 debian:experimental-x-arm64   : Ok   aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 8.2.0-4) 8.2.0
>   20 debian:experimental-x-mips    : Ok   mips-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 8.1.0-12) 8.1.0
>   21 debian:experimental-x-mips64  : Ok   mips64-linux-gnuabi64-gcc (Debian 8.1.0-12) 8.1.0
>   22 debian:experimental-x-mipsel  : Ok   mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 8.1.0-12) 8.1.0
>   28 fedora:24-x-ARC-uClibc        : Ok   arc-linux-gcc (ARCompact ISA Linux uClibc toolchain 2017.09-rc2) 7.1.1 20170710
>   46 ubuntu:14.04.4-x-linaro-arm64 : Ok   aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Linaro GCC 5.5-2017.10) 5.5.0
>   48 ubuntu:16.04-x-arm            : Ok   arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   49 ubuntu:16.04-x-arm64          : Ok   aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   50 ubuntu:16.04-x-powerpc        : Ok   powerpc-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   51 ubuntu:16.04-x-powerpc64      : Ok   powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu/IBM 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   52 ubuntu:16.04-x-powerpc64el    : Ok   powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu/IBM 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   53 ubuntu:16.04-x-s390           : Ok   s390x-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   57 ubuntu:18.04-x-arm            : Ok   arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   58 ubuntu:18.04-x-arm64          : Ok   aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   59 ubuntu:18.04-x-m68k           : Ok   m68k-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   60 ubuntu:18.04-x-powerpc        : Ok   powerpc-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   61 ubuntu:18.04-x-powerpc64      : Ok   powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   62 ubuntu:18.04-x-powerpc64el    : Ok   powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   63 ubuntu:18.04-x-riscv64        : Ok   riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   64 ubuntu:18.04-x-s390           : Ok   s390x-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   65 ubuntu:18.04-x-sh4            : Ok   sh4-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   66 ubuntu:18.04-x-sparc64        : Ok   sparc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0

I think the big list is mostly irrelevant. I was wondering why only x86 fails from my list of
different targets (ARM, ARM64, MIPS64, x86, x86_64, PPC), but it turns out that objtool is only
built for HAVE_STACK_VALIDATION targets (means, x86 only?).

I've tried to build it for MIPS64 with make tools/objtool and it fails in the same way.

One special thing about my compiler is really old glibc it's being built against
(hello RHEL :) maybe this causes reverse order of includes.

Nevertheless two conflicting defines of BITS_PER_LONG will only work with one particular
order of includes but not opposite. 

> I'll try and get one for building a x86_64 tools/perf,
> tools/lib/{api,bpf,traceevent} to see if I manage to reproduce the
> problem you're reporting.

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Sverdlin.