netdev - Re: [Potential Spoof] [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: remove obsolete pahole/BTF support detection

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: <20191011162117.ckleov43b5piuzvb@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:21:21 +0000
From:   Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
CC:     "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "andrii.nakryiko@...il.com" <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [Potential Spoof] [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: remove
 obsolete pahole/BTF support detection

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:13:18PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Given lots of selftests won't work without recent enough Clang/LLVM that
> fully supports BTF, there is no point in maintaining outdated BTF
> support detection and fall-back to pahole logic. Just assume we have
> everything we need.
May be an error message to tell which llvm is needed?

$(CPU) and $(PROBE) are no longer needed also?