lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] objtool: move libelf check out of top Makefile
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 03:04:22PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:16 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:51:40AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC
> > > >
> > > > chk_unwinder_orc = echo "int main() {}" | $(HOSTCC) -xc -o /dev/null -lelf -
> > > > msg_unwinder_orc = "Cannot build objtool to generate ORC metadata for CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC=y. " \
> > > > "Please install libelf-dev, libelf-devel or elfutils-libelf-devel."
> > > > toolcheck-$(CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC) += unwinder_orc
> > > >
> > > > else
> > > >
> > > > chk_stack_validation = echo "int main() {}" | $(HOSTCC) -xc -o /dev/null -lelf -
> > > > msg_stack_validation = "Cannot build objtool for CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION=y. " \
> > > > "Please install libelf-dev, libelf-devel or elfutils-libelf-devel."
> > > > toolcheck-$(CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION) += stack_validation
> > > >
> > > > endif
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > >
> > >
> > > It is ugly.
> > >
> > > Do you need such detailed information like ORC metadata stuff here?
> > >
> > > This Makefile aims to error out, showing why the build failed.
> > > That's it.
> >
> > Yeah, it is kind of ugly. But the "showing why the build failed" part
> > is important. I was trying to give the user a clear error message,
> > similar to what we have today.
> >
> > Without context, the user won't know what objtool is, or why it needs to
> > be built.
> >
> > If we have just a single error message for all cases, it should at least
> > mention the config option. Like
> >
> > "Cannot build objtool for CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION."
> >
> > But then, most users will only have that enabled because of ORC. So an
> > ORC-specific message would be more appropriate in most cases.
> >
> > So maybe it can just be something more vague:
> >
> > msg_stack_validation = "Cannot build objtool for CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC and/or CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION. " \
> > "Please install libelf-dev, libelf-devel or elfutils-libelf-devel."
> >
> > That would probably be good enough. Then we could drop the ugly ifdef.
>
>
> Fair point, but I am confused by the current
> STACK_VALIDATION / UNWINDER_ORC logic.
>
> In my understanding, objtool is
> an all-in-one object check/manipulation tool.
>
> STACK_VALIDATION and UNWINDER_ORC
> is a selection of a sub-command, 'check' or 'orc generate'.
>
> (Correct me if am wrong.)
>
>
> However, STACK_VALIDATION is still used to
> decide whether or not to compile the objtool.
>
>
> Adding a new symbol OBJTOOL would clarify the logic.
>
>
>
> config OBJTOOL
> bool
>
> config STACK_VALIDATION
> bool "Compile-time stack metadata validation"
> depends on HAVE_STACK_VALIDATION
> select OBJTOOL
> ...
>
>
> config UNWINDER_ORC
> bool "ORC unwinder"
> depends on X86_64
> select OBJTOOL
> ...

While 'orc generate' and 'check' are indeed separate subcommands of
objtool, the functionality of 'orc generate' is actually a superset of
the functionality of 'check'. In other words, ORC generation relies on
the stack validation feature, which is consistent with the current
config logic.

--
Josh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-19 21:30    [W:0.053 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site