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  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:   Sat, 23 Nov 2019 01:47:34 +0200
From:   Ivan Khoronzhuk <>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Yonghong Song <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>,
        john fastabend <>,
        open list <>,
        Networking <>, bpf <>,,,,
        Andrii Nakryiko <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 11/15] libbpf: don't use cxx to test_libpf

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 08:32:11AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>On 11/21, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:42 PM Stanislav Fomichev <> 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. :)
>It's surprising, the commit 8c4905b995c6 clearly states the reason
>for adding it. Looks like it deserved a real comment in the Makefile :-)

I dislike changing things like this, but I was asked while review and
it seemed logical enough. The comment could prevent us from doing 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?
>Ack, will move this test_libbpf.c into selftests and convert back to

Ivan Khoronzhuk

Powered by blists - more mailing lists