netdev - RE: Linux 5.4 - bpf test build fails

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: <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF977BCBF5@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:07:16 +0000
From:   <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
To:     <cristian.marussi@....com>, <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: Linux 5.4 - bpf test build fails



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cristian Marussi on Tuesday, September 24, 2019 7:30 AM
> 
> Hi Shuah
> 
> On 24/09/2019 17:39, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > On 9/24/19 10:03 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> >> On 9/24/19 9:52 AM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> >>> Hi Shuah
> >>>
> >>> On 24/09/2019 16:26, Shuah Khan wrote:
> >>>> Hi Alexei and Daniel,
> >>>>
> >>>> bpf test doesn't build on Linux 5.4 mainline. Do you know what's
> >>>> happening here.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
> >>>
> >>> side question, since I'm writing arm64/ tests.
> >>>
> >>> my "build-testcases" following the KSFT docs are:
> >>>
> >>> make kselftest
> >>> make TARGETS=arm64 kselftest
> >>> make -C tools/testing/selftests/
> >>> make -C tools/testing/selftests/ INSTALL_PATH=<install-path> install
> >>> make TARGETS=arm64 -C tools/testing/selftests/
> >>> make TARGETS=arm64 -C tools/testing/selftests/
> >>> INSTALL_PATH=<install-path> install
> >>> ./kselftest_install.sh <install-path>
> >
> > Cristian,
> >
> > That being said, I definitely want to see this list limited to
> > a few options.
> >
> > One problem is that if somebody wants to do just a build, there
> > is no option from the main makefile. I have sent support for that
> > a few months ago and the patch didn't got lost it appears. I am
> > working on resending those patches. The same is true for install.
> > I sent in a patch for that a while back and I am going to resend.
> > These will make it easier for users.
> >
> > I would really want to get to supporting only these options:
> >
> > These are supported now:
> >
> > make kselftest
> > make TARGETS=arm64 kselftest (one or more targets)
> >
> > Replace the following:
> >
> > make -C tools/testing/selftests/ with
> >
> > make kselftes_build option from main makefile
> >
> > Replace this:
> > make -C tools/testing/selftests/ INSTALL_PATH=<install-path> install
> >
> > with
> > make kselftest_install
> 
> Yes these top level options would be absolutely useful to avoid multiplication
> of build targets to support and test.
> 
> Moreover, currently, since there was a lot of test growing into arm64/
> inside subdirs like arm64/signal, I support (still under review in fact) in the
> arm64/
> toplevel makefile the possibility of building/installing by subdirs only, in order
> to be able to limit what you want to build/install of a TARGET (resulting in
> quicker devel),
> issuing something like:
> 
> make TARGETS=arm64 SUBTARGETS=signal -C tools/testing/selftests/
> 
> if possible, that would be useful if kept functional even in the
> new schema. I mean being able to still issue:
> 
> make TARGETS=arm64 SUBTARGETS=signal kselftes_build

From a user perspective, instead of adding a new SUBTARGETS variable,
I would prefer something like the following:

make TARGET=arm64/signal kselftest_build

If you just add a single flat subsidiary namespace, then it doesn't support further
increasing the directory depth in the future.

 -- Tim

> with the SUBTARGETS= or whatever ENV var handling delegated to the lower
> level
> makefiles (so not handled by the toplevel, but just let go through)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Cristian
> 
> >
> > That way we can support all the use-cases from the main Makefile
> >
> > thanks,
> > -- Shuah
> >
> >