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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 10:28:39 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        "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>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [Potential Spoof] [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: remove
 obsolete pahole/BTF support detection

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:21 AM Martin Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
>
> 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 fully supports BTF, there is no point in maintaining outdated BTF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?

Not sure where we'd want this to be checked/printed. We don't do this
today, so what I'm doing here is not really a regression.
There is no single llvm version I'd want to pin down. For most tests
LLVM w/ basic BTF support would be enough, for CO-RE stuff we need the
latest Clang 10 (not yet released officially), though. So essentially
the stance right now is that you need latest Clang built from sources
to have all the tests compiled and I don't think it's easy to check
for that.

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

Good catch, removing them as well.