linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf build: warn if libtracefs is not found

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]

Message-ID: <CAP-5=fVvc612rGoE3xXYqRornKZgTLgnyQH8jfJ2D9x0pDDcPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:26:21 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, 
	Guilherme Amadio <amadio@...too.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf build: warn if libtracefs is not found

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:07 AM Guilherme Amadio <amadio@...too.org> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Guilherme Amadio <amadio@...too.org>
> ---
>  tools/perf/Makefile.config | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.config b/tools/perf/Makefile.config
> index 987b48f242d3..e99afc7eb4b5 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/Makefile.config
> +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.config
> @@ -1204,6 +1204,8 @@ ifneq ($(NO_LIBTRACEEVENT),1)
>      LIBTRACEFS_VERSION_3 := $(word 3, $(subst ., ,$(LIBTRACEFS_VERSION)))
>      LIBTRACEFS_VERSION_CPP := $(shell expr $(LIBTRACEFS_VERSION_1) \* 255 \* 255 + $(LIBTRACEFS_VERSION_2) \* 255 + $(LIBTRACEFS_VERSION_3))
>      CFLAGS += -DLIBTRACEFS_VERSION=$(LIBTRACEFS_VERSION_CPP)
> +  else
> +    $(warning libtracefs is missing. Please install libtracefs-dev/libtracefs-devel)

This all makes sense and looks good to me. I believe perf isn't
directly depending on libtracefs and gets the dependency from
libtraceevent. Older libtraceevents didn't have libtracefs so just
warning in this case makes sense to me. I just wanted to speak my
thoughts out loud in case I was missing something.

Thanks,
Ian

>    endif
>  endif
>
> --
> 2.45.2
>