linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] selftests/openat2: fix clang build failures: -static-libasan, LOCAL

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3022c21b-a34d-4592-a0da-79e047372eef@arm.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 18:19:14 +0100
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
 Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>, Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobst.de>,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] selftests/openat2: fix clang build failures:
 -static-libasan, LOCAL_HDRS

On 10/05/2024 19:22, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 5/10/24 10:56 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 5/10/24 4:52 AM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2024 05:43, John Hubbard wrote:
>> ...
>>> It just occured to me that the bug report I was fixing with my attempt was
>>> invoking make like this (see [1]):
>>>
>>> # tools/testing/selftests/fchmodat2$ make CC=clang
>>> # tools/testing/selftests/openat2$ make CC=clang
>>>
>>> So LLVM is not set in this case. Perhaps my approach [2] (suggested by Arnd) of
>>> using cc-option is more robust? (cc-option is alredy used by other selftests).
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I think that would better handle the two cases: setting LLVM,
>> and/or setting CC (!).
>>
>> For that, some nits, but only worth fussing over if the patch hasn't
>> gone in yet, or if you're changing it for some other reason:
>>
> 
> I just remembered it needs the LOCAL_HDRS approach as well. Did your
> patch already go in? Should I fix up this one here to use cc-option,
> or go with yours? Either way is fine with me.

I don't think my patch has been taken into any branch - I didn't see a
notification anyway. So it would be great if you are happy to take ownership of
it? - I'm on Paternity leave for the next 3 weeks so wouldn't get it done until
I get back.

> 
> thanks,