linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] 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]

Message-ID: <YugVTQ7CoqXRTNBY@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 15:02:53 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:     Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Cc:     Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Ben Hutchings <benh@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] tools: fix compilation failure caused by
 init_disassemble_info API changes

Em Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 04:15:19PM +0100, Quentin Monnet escreveu:
> On 01/08/2022 13:45, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 06:38:26PM -0700, Andres Freund escreveu:
> >> binutils changed the signature of init_disassemble_info(), which now causes
> >> compilation failures for tools/{perf,bpf} on e.g. debian unstable. Relevant
> >> binutils commit:
> >> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=60a3da00bd5407f07
> >>
> >> I first fixed this without introducing the compat header, as suggested by
> >> Quentin, but I thought the amount of repeated boilerplate was a bit too
> >> much. So instead I introduced a compat header to wrap the API changes. Even
> >> tools/bpf/bpftool/jit_disasm.c, which needs its own callbacks for json, imo
> >> looks nicer this way.
> >>
> >> I'm not regular contributor, so it very well might be my procedures are a
> >> bit off...
> >>
> >> I am not sure I added the right [number of] people to CC?
> > 
> > I think its ok
> >  
> >> WRT the feature test: Not sure what the point of the -DPACKAGE='"perf"' is,
> > 
> > I think its related to libbfd, and it comes from a long time ago, trying
> > to find the cset adding that...
> > 
> >> nor why tools/perf/Makefile.config sets some LDFLAGS/CFLAGS that are also
> >> in feature/Makefile and why -ldl isn't needed in the other places. But...
> >>
> >> V2:
> >> - split patches further, so that tools/bpf and tools/perf part are entirely
> >>   separate
> > 
> > Cool, thanks, I'll process the first 4 patches, then at some point the
> > bpftool bits can be merged, alternatively I can process those as well if
> > the bpftool maintainers are ok with it.
> > 
> > I'll just wait a bit to see if Jiri and others have something to say.
> > 
> > - Arnaldo
> 
> Thanks for this work! For the series:
> 
> Acked-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
> 
> For what it's worth, it would make sense to me that these patches remain
> together (so, through Arnaldo's tree), given that both the perf and
> bpftool parts depend on dis-asm-compat.h being available.

Ok, so I'm tentatively adding it to my local tree to do some tests, if
someone disagrees, please holler.

- Arnaldo