netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] tools/bpf: properly account for libbfd variations

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: <20190115214711.GA726@mini-arch>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:47:11 -0800
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        quentin.monnet@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] tools/bpf: properly account for libbfd variations

On 01/15, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:59:53 -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On some platforms, in order to link against libbfd, we need to
> > link against liberty and even possibly libz. Account for that
> > in the bpftool Makefile. We now have proper feature detection
> > for each case, so handle each one separately.
> > 
> > See recent commit 14541b1e7e72 ("perf build: Don't unconditionally link the
> > libbfd feature test to -liberty and -lz") where I fixed feature
> > detection.
> > 
> > Fixes: 29a9c10e4110 ("bpftool: make libbfd optional")
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> 
> Minor nits below, in any case:
> 
> Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> 
> Thanks for making bpftool build! :)
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile
> > index 492f0f24e2d3..af9a25bf480d 100644
> > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile
> > @@ -92,10 +92,21 @@ BFD_SRCS = jit_disasm.c
> >  
> >  SRCS = $(filter-out $(BFD_SRCS),$(wildcard *.c))
> >  
> > -ifeq ($(feature-libbfd),1)
> > +ifeq ($(feature-libbfd), 1)
> 
> nit: no space there is more common
> 
> $ git grep 'ifeq' | grep ',[^ ]' | wc -l
> 482
> $ git grep 'ifeq' | grep ', ' | wc -l
> 136
> 
> 
> > +LIBS += -lbfd -ldl -lopcodes
> 
> nit: should this be indented?
> 
> > +else
> > +  ifeq ($(feature-libbfd-liberty), 1)
> > +    LIBS += -lbfd -ldl -lopcodes -liberty
> > +  else
> > +    ifeq ($(feature-libbfd-liberty-z), 1)
> > +      LIBS += -lbfd -ldl -lopcodes -liberty -lz
> > +    endif
> 
> Would this syntax:
> 
> ifeq ($(feature-libbfd),1)
>   LIBS += ..
> else ifeq ($(feature-libbfd-liberty),1)
>   LIBS += ..
> else ifeq ($(feature-libbfd-liberty-z),1)
>   LIBS += ..
> endif
> 
> Not work?
I does seem to work :-) This is the first time I see it being written that
way. (but your link indeed shows that this syntax is supported)

I'll post v2 shortly with all the nits addressed. Thanks for a quick
review!
> 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Conditional-Syntax.html
> 
> I don't think I've ever tried, but looks more concise.. 
> 
> > +  endif
> > +endif
> > +
> > +ifneq ($(filter -lbfd,$(EXTLIBS)),)
> >  CFLAGS += -DHAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT
> >  SRCS += $(BFD_SRCS)
> > -LIBS += -lbfd -lopcodes
> >  endif
> >  
> >  OBJS = $(patsubst %.c,$(OUTPUT)%.o,$(SRCS)) $(OUTPUT)disasm.o
>