linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libbpf: Fix build on read-only filesystems

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: <20191220220506.GC9076@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 19:05:06 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libbpf: Fix build on read-only filesystems

Em Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 02:00:48PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:53 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com> wrote:
> > Em Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 01:45:52PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu:
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:47 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > Shouldn't this be applied to the current merge window since a behaviour
> > > > that people relied, i.e. using O= to generate the build in a separate
> > > > directory, since its not possible to use the source dir tree as it is
> > > > read-only is now broken, i.e. isn't this a regression?

> > > Sure, it can be applied against bpf as well, but selftests still need
> > > to be fixed first.

> > I guess this can be done on a separate patch? I.e. if the user doesn't
> > use selftests the only regression it will see is when trying to build
> > tools/perf using O=.

> > I think two patches is best, better granularity, do you see a strict
> > need for both to be in the same patch?
 
> Sure, it can be two separate patches, but they should go in together,
> otherwise selftests will be broken.

Sure, both have to be fixed :-)

- Arnaldo