From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751830AbeBMKRA (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:17:00 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:58337 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933908AbeBMKQ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2018 05:16:58 -0500 From: Michael Ellerman To: Kees Cook Cc: Michal Hocko , Will Drewry , linux-s390 , PowerPC , LKML Subject: Re: samples/seccomp/ broken when cross compiling s390, ppc allyesconfig In-Reply-To: References: <20180212133731.GE3443@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87r2ppvaeq.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 21:16:55 +1100 Message-ID: <87d1192nzc.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kees Cook writes: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Michal Hocko writes: >>> Hi, >>> my build test machinery chokes on samples/seccomp when cross compiling >>> s390 and ppc64 allyesconfig. This has been the case for quite some >>> time already but I never found time to look at the problem and report >>> it. It seems this is not new issue and similar thing happend for >>> MIPS e9107f88c985 ("samples/seccomp/Makefile: do not build tests if >>> cross-compiling for MIPS"). >>> >>> The build logs are attached. >>> >>> What is the best way around this? Should we simply skip compilation on >>> cross compile or is actually anybody relying on that? Or should I simply >>> disable it for s390 and ppc? >> >> The whole thing seems very confused. It's not building for the target, >> it's building for the host, ie. the Makefile sets hostprogs-m and >> HOSTCFLAGS etc. >> >> So it can't possibly work with cross compiling as it's currently >> written. >> >> Either the Makefile needs some serious work to properly support cross >> compiling or it should just be disabled when cross compiling. > > Hrm, yeah, the goal was to entirely disable cross compiling, but I > guess we didn't hit it with a hard enough hammer. :) Do you know why it is written that way? Why doesn't it just try to cross compile like normal code? cheers