linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 00/14] samples: bpf: improve/fix cross-compilation

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, 17 Sep 2019 22:33:51 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 00/14] samples: bpf: improve/fix cross-compilation

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:02 AM Ivan Khoronzhuk
<ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org> wrote:
>

Thanks for these changes, they look good overall. It would be great if
someone else could test and validate that cross-compilation works not
just in your environment and generated binaries successfully run on
target machines, though...

[...]


>
> Ivan Khoronzhuk (14):
>   samples: bpf: makefile: fix HDR_PROBE "echo"
>   samples: bpf: makefile: fix cookie_uid_helper_example obj build
>   samples: bpf: makefile: use --target from cross-compile
>   samples: bpf: use own EXTRA_CFLAGS for clang commands
>   samples: bpf: makefile: use __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ selector for arm
>   samples: bpf: makefile: drop unnecessarily inclusion for bpf_load
>   samples: bpf: add makefile.target for separate CC target build
>   samples: bpf: makefile: base target programs rules on Makefile.target
>   samples: bpf: makefile: use own flags but not host when cross compile
>   samples: bpf: makefile: use target CC environment for HDR_PROBE
>   libbpf: makefile: add C/CXX/LDFLAGS to libbpf.so and test_libpf
>     targets
>   samples: bpf: makefile: provide C/CXX/LD flags to libbpf
>   samples: bpf: makefile: add sysroot support
>   samples: bpf: README: add preparation steps and sysroot info
>

Prefixes like "samples: bpf: makefile: " are very verbose without
adding much value. We've been converging to essentially this set of
prefixes:

- "libbpf:" for libbpf changes
- "bpftool:" for bpftool changes
- "selftests/bpf:" for bpf selftests
- "samples/bpf:" for bpf samples

There is no need to prefix with "makefile: " either. Please update
your patch subjects in the next version. Thanks!

>  samples/bpf/Makefile        | 179 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  samples/bpf/Makefile.target |  75 +++++++++++++++
>  samples/bpf/README.rst      |  41 ++++++++-
>  tools/lib/bpf/Makefile      |  11 ++-
>  4 files changed, 225 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 samples/bpf/Makefile.target
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>