linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] package: add tar development package for 3rd party modules

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:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 23:48:57 +0200
From:   Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...n.ch>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
CC:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] package: add tar development package for 3rd party
 modules

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 01:11:18PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>Hi--
>
>On 10/21/22 03:14, Federico Vaga wrote:
>> Most, if not all, Linux distributions provides a Linux development
>> package which purpose is to support the building of out-of-tree modules
>> without providing the entire source tree.
>>
>> What ends up in this development directory is a mixture of source
>> files (mainly headers) and generated ones (headers, and tools produced
>> by `make modules_prepare`).
>>
>> This patch is an attempt to generate a tarball archive containing all
>> required files to build external modules. It could be than reused by
>> packagers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...n.ch>
>> ---
>>  Makefile                       |   2 +-
>>  scripts/Makefile.package       |  13 +++
>>  scripts/package/buildtar-devel | 207 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 221 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>  create mode 100644 scripts/package/buildtar-devel
>
>Is there a patch 2/2?  I don't see it anywhere.

My mistake.

Yes there is a second one but I did not want to send it becuase it is about
generalizing buildtar to build 3 type of tarballs: the linux binaries to be
placed in /boot, the header files for user-space, and the development headers
and tools for out-of-tree modules (this patch).

The second one makes sense, only if this one makes sense. That's why I wrote few
lines in the RFC cover letter. I should have used the format-patch option to not
enumerate patches :)

>thanks.
>-- 
>~Randy

-- 
-------------------------------
Federico Vaga - CERN BE-CEM-EDL