netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 11/15] libbpf: don't use cxx to test

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: <CAEf4BzZWPwzC8ZBWcBOfQQmxBkDRjogxw2xHZ+dMWOrrMmU0sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:11:34 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc:     Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org,
        sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 11/15] libbpf: don't use cxx to test_libpf target

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:42 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote:
>
> On 10/11, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
> > No need to use C++ for test_libbpf target when libbpf is on C and it
> > can be tested with C, after this change the CXXFLAGS in makefiles can
> > be avoided, at least in bpf samples, when sysroot is used, passing
> > same C/LDFLAGS as for lib.
> >
> > Add "return 0" in test_libbpf to avoid warn, but also remove spaces at
> > start of the lines to keep same style and avoid warns while apply.
> Hey, just spotted this patch, not sure how it slipped through.
> The c++ test was there to make sure libbpf can be included and
> linked against c++ code (i.e. libbpf headers don't have some c++
> keywords/etc).
>
> Any particular reason you were not happy with it? Can we revert it
> back to c++ and fix your use-case instead? Alternatively, we can just
> remove this test if we don't really care about c++.
>

No one seemed to know why we have C++ pieces in pure C library and its
Makefile, so we decide to "fix" this. :)
But I do understand your concern. Would it be possible to instead do
this as a proper selftests test? Do you mind taking a look at that?
Thanks!

(please trim irrelevant parts)
[...]