netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] tools: bpftool: fix reading from /proc/config.gz

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: <20190809145726.2972fa7a@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:57:26 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc:     Peter Wu <peter@...ensteyn.nl>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tools: bpftool: fix reading from /proc/config.gz

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:48:31 -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> I'm just being nit picky :-)
> Because changelog says we already depend on -lz, but then in the patch
> we explicitly add it.
> 
> I think you were right in pointing out that we already implicitly depend
> on -lz via -lelf and/or -lbfd. And it works for non-static builds.
> We don't need an explicit -lz unless somebody puts '-static' in
> EXTRA_CFLAGS. So maybe we should just submit the patch as is because
> it fixes make EXTRA_CFLAGS=-static.

Mm. Sounds reasonable. Fixing EXTRA_CFLAGS=-static would be really cool,
too, I always struggle to get a statically linked build.

> RE $(error): we don't do it for -lelf, right? So probably not worth
> the hassle for zlib.

Right, OTOH bpftool doesn't really care about -lelf, it's libbpf that
needs it, and libbpf does test.