linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] tools: fix compilation failure caused by init_disassemble

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, 5 Jul 2022 00:12:37 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To:     Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] tools: fix compilation failure caused by
 init_disassemble_info API changes

On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 01:19:22PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2022-07-04 11:13:33 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > I think the disassembler checks should not be displayed by default,
> > with your change I can see all the time:
> > 
> > ...        disassembler-four-args: [ on  ]
> > ...      disassembler-init-styled: [ OFF ]
> > 
> > 
> > could you please squash something like below in? moving disassembler
> > checks out of sight and do manual detection
> 
> Makes sense - I was wondering why disassembler-four-args is displayed, but
> though it better to mirror the existing behaviour. Does "hiding"
> disassembler-four-args need to be its own set of commits?

I guess first hide the disassembler-four-args and add the new the same way

> 
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.config b/tools/perf/Makefile.config
> > index ee417c321adb..2aa0bad11f05 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/Makefile.config
> > +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.config
> > @@ -914,8 +914,6 @@ ifndef NO_LIBBFD
> >          FEATURE_CHECK_LDFLAGS-disassembler-init-styled += -liberty -lz -ldl
> >        endif
> >      endif
> > -    $(call feature_check,disassembler-four-args)
> > -    $(call feature_check,disassembler-init-styled)
> >    endif
> >  
> >    ifeq ($(feature-libbfd-buildid), 1)
> > @@ -1025,6 +1023,9 @@ ifdef HAVE_KVM_STAT_SUPPORT
> >      CFLAGS += -DHAVE_KVM_STAT_SUPPORT
> >  endif
> >  
> > +$(call feature_check,disassembler-four-args)
> > +$(call feature_check,disassembler-init-styled)
> > +
> >  ifeq ($(feature-disassembler-four-args), 1)
> >      CFLAGS += -DDISASM_FOUR_ARGS_SIGNATURE
> >  endif
> 
> This I don't understand - why do we want these to run under NO_LIBBFD etc?

when I was quickly testing that I did not have any of them detected
and got compile fail.. so I moved it to safe place ;-) it might be
placed in smarter place 

thanks,
jirka

> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Andres Freund