linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] tracing/tooling: Fixes for v6.8-rc4

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, 13 Feb 2024 12:48:58 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
 <bristot@...nel.org>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, limingming3
 <limingming890315@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tracing/tooling: Fixes for v6.8-rc4

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:32:26 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 at 14:00, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > Tracing tooling updates for 6.8-rc4:  
> 
> Bah. I've pulled this, but since I did a new system install due to a
> disk upgrade some time ago, I once again don't have libtracefs-devel
> installed.
> 
> And guess what? The dependency rules are - once again  - completely
> broken, and trying to build this gets the bad old unhelpful error
> 
>    latency-collector.c:26:10: fatal error: tracefs.h: No such file or directory
> 

Hmm, that's not from this pull request. But still needs to be fixed.

> with no help for the user.
> 
> Yes, I know what to do. That isn't the point. And no, this isn't new
> to this pull request, it's just that on this machine I haven't tried
> building the tracing tools in a while.
> 
> Let's not make the user experience for people who want to do kernel
> builds any worse than it has to be.
> 
> Side note: instead of the (clearly broken) special Makefile rules, can
> you please just take a look at the perf code instead?  In fact, maybe
> it's time for the kernel tooling people to try to unify and come to an
> agreement about these things, and share more of the code.
> 
> Because unlike the tracing tools, the perf tools seem to generally get
> this part of the build system right, despite (or probably due to)
> having a lot *more* (and more complex) library dependencies.

Daniel is mostly maintaining this work.

Daniel, can you talk with Arnaldo and be able to collaborate with him on
consolidating the build process?

I'm even fine if this starts going through Arnaldo's tree as I'm not really
using it for my work anymore. I just did a smoke test, but as I have the
necessary libraries, it didn't fail for me.

Thanks!

-- Steve