linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Kbuild: lto: add CONFIG_MAKE

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: <20210709082512.25208-1-lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jul 2021 16:25:12 +0800
From:   Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>
To:     <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
CC:     <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>, <keescook@...omium.org>,
        <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>, <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>, <nathan@...nel.org>,
        <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, <yj.chiang@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Kbuild: lto: add CONFIG_MAKE_VERSION

> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 2:06 AM Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 7:03 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 12:29 PM Lecopzer Chen
> > > > <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > To check the GNU make version. Used by the LTO Kconfig.
> > > > >
> > > > > LTO with MODVERSIONS will fail in generating correct CRC because
> > > > > the makefile rule doesn't work for make with version 3.8X.[1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus we need to check make version during selecting on LTO Kconfig.
> > > > > Add CONFIG_MAKE_VERSION which means MAKE_VERSION in canonical digits
> > > > > for arithmetic comparisons.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210616080252.32046-1-lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com/
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > NACK.
> > > >
> > > > "Let's add MAKE_VERSION >= 40200 restriction
> > > > just because I cannot write correct code that
> > > > works for older Make" is a horrible idea.
> > > >
> > > > Also, Kconfig is supposed to check the compiler
> > > > (or toolchains) capability, not host tool versions.
> > >
> > > I feel like requiring a Make that's half a decade old for a feature
> > > that also requires a toolchain released last October ago isn't
> > > entirely unreasonable.
> > >
> > > That being said, if Masahiro prefers not to rely on the wildcard
> > > function's behavior here, which is a reasonable request, we could
> > > simply use the shell to test for the file's existence:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.build b/scripts/Makefile.build
> > > index 34d257653fb4..c6bd62f518ff 100644
> > > --- a/scripts/Makefile.build
> > > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.build
> > > @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_LTO_CLANG) $(CONFIG_MODVERSIONS),y y)
> > >        cmd_update_lto_symversions =                                     \
> > >         rm -f $@...mversions                                            \
> > >         $(foreach n, $(filter-out FORCE,$^),                            \
> > > -               $(if $(wildcard $(n).symversions),                      \
> > > +               $(if $(shell test -s $(n).symversions && echo y),       \
> > >                         ; cat $(n).symversions >> $@...mversions))
> > >  else
> > >        cmd_update_lto_symversions = echo >/dev/null
> > >
> > > This is not quite as efficient as using wildcard, but should work with
> > > older Make versions too. Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I've tested this in both make-4.3 and 3.81, and the CRC is correct.
> > But I'm not sure if anyone would have the "arg list too long" issue.
> >
> > Tested-by: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>
> 
> Thank you for testing. This should produce a command identical to the
> wildcard version (with newer Make versions), so that shouldn't be an
> issue. If nobody objects to this approach, would you mind putting this
> into a proper patch and sending it as v4?

Sure, I'll rebase the whole commit and send as v4 soon.