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]

Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 16:15:19 +0100
From:   Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
Cc:     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

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.

Quentin