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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 15:35:36 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        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

On 8/1/22 8:02 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> 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.

Ack, sgtm. Please route these fixes via your tree. Thanks Arnaldo!