linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/12] selftests/nolibc: add support for LLVM= parameter

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: <20240803094530.GE29127@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:45:30 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] selftests/nolibc: add support for LLVM= parameter

On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 12:10:03PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Makefile.include can modify CC and CFLAGS for usage with clang.
> Make use of it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
> index 8000bc3c408b..cdff317c35f2 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
> @@ -155,6 +155,9 @@ CFLAGS  ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 -W -Wall -Wex
>  		$(CFLAGS_$(XARCH)) $(CFLAGS_STACKPROTECTOR) $(CFLAGS_EXTRA)
>  LDFLAGS :=
>  
> +# Modify CFLAGS based on LLVM=
> +include $(srctree)/tools/scripts/Makefile.include

I'm confused, doesn't it precisely undo the previous patch, which
said that we ought not to include Makefile.include as it makes it
harder for LLVM ?

If so, I suspect that both commits should be squashed with a better
explanation for both operations at once (e.g. maybe "move makefile
inclusion later to benefit from LLVM=..." etc).

Thanks,
Willy