netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] tools: bpftool: improve bpftool build experience

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]

Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:25:54 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] tools: bpftool: improve bpftool build
 experience

On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:56:42 +0100, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> Hi,
> This set attempts to make it easier to build bpftool, in particular when
> passing a specific output directory. This is a follow-up to the
> conversation held last month by Lorenz, Ilya and Jakub [0].
> 
> The first patch is a minor fix to bpftool's Makefile, regarding the
> retrieval of kernel version (which currently prints a non-relevant make
> warning on some invocations).
> 
> Second patch improves the Makefile commands to support more "make"
> invocations, or to fix building with custom output directory. On Jakub's
> suggestion, a script is also added to BPF selftests in order to keep track
> of the supported build variants.
> 
> At last, third patch is a sligthly modified version of Ilya's fix regarding
> libbpf.a appearing twice on the linking command for bpftool.
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACAyw9-CWRHVH3TJ=Tke2x8YiLsH47sLCijdp=V+5M836R9aAA@mail.gmail.com/

I think Ilya has a point, but otherwise looks good to me :)

Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>