[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Helge Deller]

On a non-release architecture, the configure program aborts if the
--enable-seccomp flag was given (with no way to work around it on the
command line):

ERROR: User requested feature libseccomp
	configure was not able to find it.
	libseccomp is not supported for host cpu parisc64

Instead of aborting, fall back to require libseccomp version 2.2.0
(or any higher version currently installed) which should be OK for
non-release architectures.

Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>

diff --git a/configure b/configure
index 1c563a7027..8632267049 100755
--- a/configure
+++ b/configure
@@ -2389,7 +2389,6 @@ if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
         libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
         ;;
     *)
-        libseccomp_minver=""
         ;;
     esac

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Peter Maydell]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 19:51, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:

[cc'ing Eduardo as the seccomp submaintainer]

> On a non-release architecture, the configure program aborts if the
> --enable-seccomp flag was given (with no way to work around it on the
> command line):
>
> ERROR: User requested feature libseccomp
>         configure was not able to find it.
>         libseccomp is not supported for host cpu parisc64

Surely the workaround is "don't pass --enable-seccomp on
the configure command line" ?

Our general approach with configure arguments is:
 --disable-foo means "don't try to look for or use foo"
 --enable-foo means "use foo, and stop with an error if we can't use
     foo for any reason (eg not found, version too old)"
passing nothing means "look for foo, use it if we can,
     but if we can't then just silently don't use foo"

So I think if the user specifically asks us to use seccomp on a
host architecture where it won't work then configure should fail.

Is the underlying problem here:
 * we use a whitelist of host architectures to enable seccomp for
   and we should not do that (eg blacklist instead, or just allow it
   for any host architecture)?
 * using a whitelist is ok, but we should add some more host archs to it?
 * something else?

What particular host arch are you using?

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Peter Maydell]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:16, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 19:51, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> [cc'ing Eduardo as the seccomp submaintainer]
>
> > On a non-release architecture, the configure program aborts if the
> > --enable-seccomp flag was given (with no way to work around it on the
> > command line):
> >
> > ERROR: User requested feature libseccomp
> >         configure was not able to find it.
> >         libseccomp is not supported for host cpu parisc64

> What particular host arch are you using?

Doh, just noticed that the error message has the answer to this!

thanks
- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Helge Deller]

On 03.04.19 17:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 19:51, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> [cc'ing Eduardo as the seccomp submaintainer]
>
>> On a non-release architecture, the configure program aborts if the
>> --enable-seccomp flag was given (with no way to work around it on the
>> command line):
>>
>> ERROR: User requested feature libseccomp
>>         configure was not able to find it.
>>         libseccomp is not supported for host cpu parisc64
>
> Surely the workaround is "don't pass --enable-seccomp on
> the configure command line" ?

Sure, that's the easy solution but doesn't work for me.
The only reason why I come up with this patch, is that
on Debian the qemu package fails to build on parisc because
of this issue, as can be seen here:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=qemu&arch=hppa
Debian sets the -enable-seccomp flags, so it fails on parisc
(already in the qemu 1.3 release).
> Our general approach with configure arguments is:
>  --disable-foo means "don't try to look for or use foo"
>  --enable-foo means "use foo, and stop with an error if we can't use
>      foo for any reason (eg not found, version too old)"

Yes, that's OK.

> passing nothing means "look for foo, use it if we can,
>      but if we can't then just silently don't use foo"
>
> So I think if the user specifically asks us to use seccomp on a
> host architecture where it won't work then configure should fail.

True, it should fail if it's not useable.
But In my case, latest libseccomp is avaialble & functional, but
nevertheless configure fails because parisc is not in the white list.

> Is the underlying problem here:
>  * we use a whitelist of host architectures to enable seccomp for
>    and we should not do that (eg blacklist instead, or just allow it
>    for any host architecture)?

Yes, that's one option.
My patch partly does that by allowing -enble-seccomp as long as a
libseccomp package is found.

>  * using a whitelist is ok, but we should add some more host archs to it?

I think for non-release architectures there is no need to be too strict.
If something is available, just use it, independend of the architecture.
This solves it not just for parisc...

I'm fine with any solution as long as it works :-)

> What particular host arch are you using?

You already found out in your other mail: hppa/parisc.

Helge

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Daniel P. Berrangé]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:49:48PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
> On a non-release architecture, the configure program aborts if the
> --enable-seccomp flag was given (with no way to work around it on the
> command line):
> 
> ERROR: User requested feature libseccomp
> 	configure was not able to find it.
> 	libseccomp is not supported for host cpu parisc64
> 
> Instead of aborting, fall back to require libseccomp version 2.2.0
> (or any higher version currently installed) which should be OK for
> non-release architectures.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
> 
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index 1c563a7027..8632267049 100755
> --- a/configure
> +++ b/configure
> @@ -2389,7 +2389,6 @@ if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
>          libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
>          ;;
>      *)
> -        libseccomp_minver=""
>          ;;
>      esac

This makes sense to me. From a QEMU source POV we are able to build with
libseccomp >= 2.2.0, which our default libseccomp_minver= env expresses
a few lines earlier.

If libseccomp isn't supported on a platform, then I think we should just
assume that libseccomp won't be present in the OS install we are building
against. I don't think QEMU needs to second-guess whether or not it is
supported on the given architecture. In fact I'd go as far as to say we
could probably just remove all this per-arch checking and just have a
generic >= 2.2.0 check, and just rely on fact libseccomp won't exist
on a s390/ppc/etc host if the distro had version < 2.3.0

Anyway, this particular patch is better than what we have so on that
basis I think we can just apply this as-is:

  Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Eduardo Habkost]

CCing the right Eduardo.  :)

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:16:15PM +0700, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 19:51, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> [cc'ing Eduardo as the seccomp submaintainer]
> 
> > On a non-release architecture, the configure program aborts if the
> > --enable-seccomp flag was given (with no way to work around it on the
> > command line):
> >
> > ERROR: User requested feature libseccomp
> >         configure was not able to find it.
> >         libseccomp is not supported for host cpu parisc64
> 
> Surely the workaround is "don't pass --enable-seccomp on
> the configure command line" ?
> 
> Our general approach with configure arguments is:
>  --disable-foo means "don't try to look for or use foo"
>  --enable-foo means "use foo, and stop with an error if we can't use
>      foo for any reason (eg not found, version too old)"
> passing nothing means "look for foo, use it if we can,
>      but if we can't then just silently don't use foo"
> 
> So I think if the user specifically asks us to use seccomp on a
> host architecture where it won't work then configure should fail.
> 
> Is the underlying problem here:
>  * we use a whitelist of host architectures to enable seccomp for
>    and we should not do that (eg blacklist instead, or just allow it
>    for any host architecture)?
>  * using a whitelist is ok, but we should add some more host archs to it?
>  * something else?
> 
> What particular host arch are you using?
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM

-- 
Eduardo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Peter Maydell]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 04:05, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> CCing the right Eduardo.  :)

Oops, sorry! Can I blame my email client's autocompletion? :-)

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Peter Maydell]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 23:27, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:49:48PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
> > diff --git a/configure b/configure
> > index 1c563a7027..8632267049 100755
> > --- a/configure
> > +++ b/configure
> > @@ -2389,7 +2389,6 @@ if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
> >          libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> >          ;;
> >      *)
> > -        libseccomp_minver=""
> >          ;;
> >      esac
>
> This makes sense to me. From a QEMU source POV we are able to build with
> libseccomp >= 2.2.0, which our default libseccomp_minver= env expresses
> a few lines earlier.
>
> If libseccomp isn't supported on a platform, then I think we should just
> assume that libseccomp won't be present in the OS install we are building
> against. I don't think QEMU needs to second-guess whether or not it is
> supported on the given architecture.

If we want to do this then we should handle all the archs which
don't need to special case the seccomp version identically, ie
remove the x86/mips case which with this patch would be the
same as the default case.

> In fact I'd go as far as to say we
> could probably just remove all this per-arch checking and just have a
> generic >= 2.2.0 check, and just rely on fact libseccomp won't exist
> on a s390/ppc/etc host if the distro had version < 2.3.0

The arm case at least is present because libseccomp 2.2.0 was
being built but didn't actually work for us. See commit ae6e8ef11e6cb43ec83.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Thomas Huth]

On 04/04/2019 03.53, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 23:27, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:49:48PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
>>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>>> index 1c563a7027..8632267049 100755
>>> --- a/configure
>>> +++ b/configure
>>> @@ -2389,7 +2389,6 @@ if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
>>>          libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
>>>          ;;
>>>      *)
>>> -        libseccomp_minver=""
>>>          ;;
>>>      esac
>>
>> This makes sense to me. From a QEMU source POV we are able to build with
>> libseccomp >= 2.2.0, which our default libseccomp_minver= env expresses
>> a few lines earlier.
>>
>> If libseccomp isn't supported on a platform, then I think we should just
>> assume that libseccomp won't be present in the OS install we are building
>> against. I don't think QEMU needs to second-guess whether or not it is
>> supported on the given architecture.
> 
> If we want to do this then we should handle all the archs which
> don't need to special case the seccomp version identically, ie
> remove the x86/mips case which with this patch would be the
> same as the default case.
> 
>> In fact I'd go as far as to say we
>> could probably just remove all this per-arch checking and just have a
>> generic >= 2.2.0 check, and just rely on fact libseccomp won't exist
>> on a s390/ppc/etc host if the distro had version < 2.3.0
> 
> The arm case at least is present because libseccomp 2.2.0 was
> being built but didn't actually work for us. See commit ae6e8ef11e6cb43ec83.

Looking at https://repology.org/project/libseccomp/versions it seems
like all major distro versions that we want to support feature at least
version 2.3.0 ... so I think we can simplify the check here for all
architectures and only test for a version >= 2.3.0.

 Thomas

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Daniel P. Berrangé]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 08:59:14AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 04/04/2019 03.53, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 23:27, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:49:48PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> >>> index 1c563a7027..8632267049 100755
> >>> --- a/configure
> >>> +++ b/configure
> >>> @@ -2389,7 +2389,6 @@ if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
> >>>          libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> >>>          ;;
> >>>      *)
> >>> -        libseccomp_minver=""
> >>>          ;;
> >>>      esac
> >>
> >> This makes sense to me. From a QEMU source POV we are able to build with
> >> libseccomp >= 2.2.0, which our default libseccomp_minver= env expresses
> >> a few lines earlier.
> >>
> >> If libseccomp isn't supported on a platform, then I think we should just
> >> assume that libseccomp won't be present in the OS install we are building
> >> against. I don't think QEMU needs to second-guess whether or not it is
> >> supported on the given architecture.
> > 
> > If we want to do this then we should handle all the archs which
> > don't need to special case the seccomp version identically, ie
> > remove the x86/mips case which with this patch would be the
> > same as the default case.
> > 
> >> In fact I'd go as far as to say we
> >> could probably just remove all this per-arch checking and just have a
> >> generic >= 2.2.0 check, and just rely on fact libseccomp won't exist
> >> on a s390/ppc/etc host if the distro had version < 2.3.0
> > 
> > The arm case at least is present because libseccomp 2.2.0 was
> > being built but didn't actually work for us. See commit ae6e8ef11e6cb43ec83.
> 
> Looking at https://repology.org/project/libseccomp/versions it seems
> like all major distro versions that we want to support feature at least
> version 2.3.0 ... so I think we can simplify the check here for all
> architectures and only test for a version >= 2.3.0.

That sounds good to me.


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Helge Deller]

All major distributions do support libseccomp version >= 2.3.0, so there
is no need to special-case on various architectures any longer.

Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>

diff --git a/configure b/configure
index 1c563a7027..8fe4fc84d8 100755
--- a/configure
+++ b/configure
@@ -2377,36 +2369,16 @@ fi
 ##########################################
 # libseccomp check

-libseccomp_minver="2.2.0"
 if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
-    case "$cpu" in
-    i386|x86_64|mips)
-        ;;
-    arm|aarch64)
-        libseccomp_minver="2.2.3"
-        ;;
-    ppc|ppc64|s390x)
-        libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
-        ;;
-    *)
-        libseccomp_minver=""
-        ;;
-    esac
-
-    if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" &&
-       $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
+    libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
+    if $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
         seccomp_cflags="$($pkg_config --cflags libseccomp)"
         seccomp_libs="$($pkg_config --libs libseccomp)"
         seccomp="yes"
     else
         if test "$seccomp" = "yes" ; then
-            if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" ; then
-                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
-                    "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
-            else
-                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
-                    "libseccomp is not supported for host cpu $cpu"
-            fi
+            feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
+                 "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
         fi
         seccomp="no"
     fi

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Thomas Huth]

On 04/04/2019 20.39, Helge Deller wrote:
> All major distributions do support libseccomp version >= 2.3.0, so there
> is no need to special-case on various architectures any longer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
> 
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index 1c563a7027..8fe4fc84d8 100755
> --- a/configure
> +++ b/configure
> @@ -2377,36 +2369,16 @@ fi
>  ##########################################
>  # libseccomp check
> 
> -libseccomp_minver="2.2.0"
>  if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
> -    case "$cpu" in
> -    i386|x86_64|mips)
> -        ;;
> -    arm|aarch64)
> -        libseccomp_minver="2.2.3"
> -        ;;
> -    ppc|ppc64|s390x)
> -        libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> -        ;;
> -    *)
> -        libseccomp_minver=""
> -        ;;
> -    esac
> -
> -    if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" &&
> -       $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
> +    libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> +    if $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
>          seccomp_cflags="$($pkg_config --cflags libseccomp)"
>          seccomp_libs="$($pkg_config --libs libseccomp)"
>          seccomp="yes"
>      else
>          if test "$seccomp" = "yes" ; then
> -            if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" ; then
> -                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> -                    "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
> -            else
> -                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> -                    "libseccomp is not supported for host cpu $cpu"
> -            fi
> +            feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> +                 "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
>          fi
>          seccomp="no"
>      fi

Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Daniel P. Berrangé]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 08:39:23PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
> All major distributions do support libseccomp version >= 2.3.0, so there
> is no need to special-case on various architectures any longer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>

Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Daniel P. Berrangé]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 08:39:23PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
> All major distributions do support libseccomp version >= 2.3.0, so there
> is no need to special-case on various architectures any longer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>

Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 4/4/19 8:39 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
> All major distributions do support libseccomp version >= 2.3.0, so there
> is no need to special-case on various architectures any longer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
> 
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index 1c563a7027..8fe4fc84d8 100755
> --- a/configure
> +++ b/configure
> @@ -2377,36 +2369,16 @@ fi
>  ##########################################
>  # libseccomp check
> 
> -libseccomp_minver="2.2.0"
>  if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
> -    case "$cpu" in
> -    i386|x86_64|mips)
> -        ;;
> -    arm|aarch64)
> -        libseccomp_minver="2.2.3"
> -        ;;
> -    ppc|ppc64|s390x)
> -        libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> -        ;;
> -    *)
> -        libseccomp_minver=""
> -        ;;
> -    esac
> -
> -    if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" &&
> -       $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
> +    libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> +    if $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
>          seccomp_cflags="$($pkg_config --cflags libseccomp)"
>          seccomp_libs="$($pkg_config --libs libseccomp)"
>          seccomp="yes"
>      else
>          if test "$seccomp" = "yes" ; then
> -            if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" ; then
> -                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> -                    "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
> -            else
> -                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> -                    "libseccomp is not supported for host cpu $cpu"
> -            fi
> +            feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> +                 "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
>          fi
>          seccomp="no"
>      fi
> 

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Eduardo Otubo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2242 bytes --]

On 04/04/2019 - 22:01:38, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 04/04/2019 20.39, Helge Deller wrote:
> > All major distributions do support libseccomp version >= 2.3.0, so there
> > is no need to special-case on various architectures any longer.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
> > 
> > diff --git a/configure b/configure
> > index 1c563a7027..8fe4fc84d8 100755
> > --- a/configure
> > +++ b/configure
> > @@ -2377,36 +2369,16 @@ fi
> >  ##########################################
> >  # libseccomp check
> > 
> > -libseccomp_minver="2.2.0"
> >  if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
> > -    case "$cpu" in
> > -    i386|x86_64|mips)
> > -        ;;
> > -    arm|aarch64)
> > -        libseccomp_minver="2.2.3"
> > -        ;;
> > -    ppc|ppc64|s390x)
> > -        libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> > -        ;;
> > -    *)
> > -        libseccomp_minver=""
> > -        ;;
> > -    esac
> > -
> > -    if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" &&
> > -       $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
> > +    libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> > +    if $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
> >          seccomp_cflags="$($pkg_config --cflags libseccomp)"
> >          seccomp_libs="$($pkg_config --libs libseccomp)"
> >          seccomp="yes"
> >      else
> >          if test "$seccomp" = "yes" ; then
> > -            if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" ; then
> > -                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> > -                    "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
> > -            else
> > -                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> > -                    "libseccomp is not supported for host cpu $cpu"
> > -            fi
> > +            feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> > +                 "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
> >          fi
> >          seccomp="no"
> >      fi
> 
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

Acked-by: Eduardo Otubo <otubo@redhat.com>

-- 
Eduardo Otubo

Red Hat GmbH,http://www.de.redhat.com/, Sitz: Grasbrunn,
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht München, HRB 153243,
Geschäftsführer: Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Tom Savage, Eric Shander

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] configure: Relax check for libseccomp

[Eduardo Otubo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2242 bytes --]

On 04/04/2019 - 22:01:38, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 04/04/2019 20.39, Helge Deller wrote:
> > All major distributions do support libseccomp version >= 2.3.0, so there
> > is no need to special-case on various architectures any longer.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
> > 
> > diff --git a/configure b/configure
> > index 1c563a7027..8fe4fc84d8 100755
> > --- a/configure
> > +++ b/configure
> > @@ -2377,36 +2369,16 @@ fi
> >  ##########################################
> >  # libseccomp check
> > 
> > -libseccomp_minver="2.2.0"
> >  if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then
> > -    case "$cpu" in
> > -    i386|x86_64|mips)
> > -        ;;
> > -    arm|aarch64)
> > -        libseccomp_minver="2.2.3"
> > -        ;;
> > -    ppc|ppc64|s390x)
> > -        libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> > -        ;;
> > -    *)
> > -        libseccomp_minver=""
> > -        ;;
> > -    esac
> > -
> > -    if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" &&
> > -       $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
> > +    libseccomp_minver="2.3.0"
> > +    if $pkg_config --atleast-version=$libseccomp_minver libseccomp ; then
> >          seccomp_cflags="$($pkg_config --cflags libseccomp)"
> >          seccomp_libs="$($pkg_config --libs libseccomp)"
> >          seccomp="yes"
> >      else
> >          if test "$seccomp" = "yes" ; then
> > -            if test "$libseccomp_minver" != "" ; then
> > -                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> > -                    "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
> > -            else
> > -                feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> > -                    "libseccomp is not supported for host cpu $cpu"
> > -            fi
> > +            feature_not_found "libseccomp" \
> > +                 "Install libseccomp devel >= $libseccomp_minver"
> >          fi
> >          seccomp="no"
> >      fi
> 
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

Acked-by: Eduardo Otubo <otubo@redhat.com>

-- 
Eduardo Otubo

Red Hat GmbH,http://www.de.redhat.com/, Sitz: Grasbrunn,
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht München, HRB 153243,
Geschäftsführer: Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Tom Savage, Eric Shander

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]