linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kbuild: control extra pacman packages with PACMAN

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: <20240806025853.GB1570554@thelio-3990X>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 19:58:53 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Jose Fernandez <jose.fernandez@...ux.dev>
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
	Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
	Christian Heusel <christian@...sel.eu>,
	Peter Jung <ptr1337@...hyos.org>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: control extra pacman packages with
 PACMAN_EXTRAPACKAGES

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 04:30:15PM -0600, Jose Fernandez wrote:
> On 24/08/05 04:01PM, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > This changes the behavior of the pacman-pkg target to only create the
> > > main kernel package by default. The rest of the packages will be opt-in
> > > going forward.
> > 
> > I had the impression that by default all extrapackages should be
> > built. The variable can then be used by expert users where needed.
> > Other Opinions?
> 
> I think switching to defaulting to all packages is a good idea. One concern I 
> had was how regular users would discover the customization options. Expert users
> will likely look at the Makefile and figure out how to opt out.

I think that most users will likely want all of the packages built by
default. I think leaving this to be discovered by power users in the
Makefile is reasonable.

> > > In a previous patch, there was concern that adding a new debug package
> > > would increase t.he package time. To address this concern and provide
> > > more flexibility, this change has been added to allow users to decide
> > > which extra packages to include before introducing an optional debug
> > > package [1].
> > 
> > This paragraph seems like it shouldn't be part of the final commit.
> > If you put it after a line with "---" it will be dropped from the
> > commit, like so:
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > In a previous patch, ...
> 
> Agreed, I will move this paragraph to below --- for v2.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240801192008.GA3923315@thelio-3990X/T/
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jose Fernandez <jose.fernandez@...ux.dev>
> > > Reviewed-by: Peter Jung <ptr1337@...hyos.org>
> > > ---
> > >  scripts/Makefile.package |  5 +++++
> > >  scripts/package/PKGBUILD | 11 ++++++++---
> > >  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.package b/scripts/Makefile.package
> > > index 4a80584ec771..146e828cb4f1 100644
> > > --- a/scripts/Makefile.package
> > > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.package
> > > @@ -144,6 +144,10 @@ snap-pkg:
> > >  # pacman-pkg
> > >  # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >  
> > > +# Space-separated list of extra packages to build
> > > +# The available extra packages are: headers api-headers
> > > +PACMAN_EXTRAPACKAGES ?=
> > 
> > The assignment doesn't do anything.
> > Do we need the documentation if the default enables all subpackages?
> > 
> > > +
> > >  PHONY += pacman-pkg
> > >  pacman-pkg:
> > >  	@ln -srf $(srctree)/scripts/package/PKGBUILD $(objtree)/PKGBUILD
> > > @@ -152,6 +156,7 @@ pacman-pkg:
> > >  		CARCH="$(UTS_MACHINE)" \
> > >  		KBUILD_MAKEFLAGS="$(MAKEFLAGS)" \
> > >  		KBUILD_REVISION="$(shell $(srctree)/scripts/build-version)" \
> > > +		PACMAN_EXTRAPACKAGES="$(PACMAN_EXTRAPACKAGES)" \
> > 
> > This line is superfluous.
> 
> Ack.

Is it superfluous if PACMAN_EXTRAPACKAGES is not exported to makepkg? If
I remove this while changing the default of PACMAN_EXTRAPACKAGES in
scripts/Makefile.package, its value is not visible in makepkg, so only
the default package gets built. I think

  export PACMAN_EXTRAPACKAGES

is needed after the '?=' assignment line.

> > >  		makepkg $(MAKEPKGOPTS)
> > >  
> > >  # dir-pkg tar*-pkg - tarball targets
> > > diff --git a/scripts/package/PKGBUILD b/scripts/package/PKGBUILD
> > > index 663ce300dd06..41bd0d387f0a 100644
> > > --- a/scripts/package/PKGBUILD
> > > +++ b/scripts/package/PKGBUILD
> > > @@ -3,10 +3,15 @@
> > >  # Contributor: Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) <heftig@...hlinux.org>
> > >  
> > >  pkgbase=${PACMAN_PKGBASE:-linux-upstream}
> > > -pkgname=("${pkgbase}" "${pkgbase}-api-headers")
> > > -if grep -q CONFIG_MODULES=y include/config/auto.conf; then
> > > -	pkgname+=("${pkgbase}-headers")
> > > +pkgname=("${pkgbase}")
> > > +
> > > +_extrapackages=${PACMAN_EXTRAPACKAGES:-}
> > > +if [ -n "$_extrapackages" ]; then
> > 
> > No need for this check. The loop over an empty variable work fine.
> 
> Ack. Will update in v2.
>  
> > > +	for pkg in $_extrapackages; do
> > > +		pkgname+=("${pkgbase}-$pkg")
> > 
> > Use consistent variable references: "${pkgbase}-${pkg}"
> 
> Ack. Will update in v2.
> 
> > > +	done
> > >  fi
> > > +
> > >  pkgver="${KERNELRELEASE//-/_}"
> > >  # The PKGBUILD is evaluated multiple times.
> > >  # Running scripts/build-version from here would introduce inconsistencies.
> > > -- 
> > > 2.46.0
> > >