Re: [PATCH] bpfilter: allow to build bpfilter_umh as a module without static library

[Masahiro Yamada]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 2:46 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:26:44PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Originally, bpfilter_umh was linked with -static only when
> > CONFIG_BPFILTER_UMH=y.
> >
> > Commit 8a2cc0505cc4 ("bpfilter: use 'userprogs' syntax to build
> > bpfilter_umh") silently, accidentally dropped the CONFIG_BPFILTER_UMH=y
> > test in the Makefile. Revive it in order to link it dynamically when
> > CONFIG_BPFILTER_UMH=m.
> >
> > Since commit b1183b6dca3e ("bpfilter: check if $(CC) can link static
> > libc in Kconfig"), the compiler must be capable of static linking to
> > enable CONFIG_BPFILTER_UMH, but it requires more than needed.
> >
> > To loosen the compiler requirement, I changed the dependency as follows:
> >
> >     depends on CC_CAN_LINK
> >     depends on m || CC_CAN_LINK_STATIC
> >
> > If CONFIG_CC_CAN_LINK_STATIC in unset, CONFIG_BPFILTER_UMH is restricted
> > to 'm' or 'n'.
> >
> > In theory, CONFIG_CC_CAN_LINK is not required for CONFIG_BPFILTER_UMH=y,
> > but I did not come up with a good way to describe it.
> >
> > Fixes: 8a2cc0505cc4 ("bpfilter: use 'userprogs' syntax to build bpfilter_umh")
> > Reported-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> lgtm
> Do you mind I'll take it into bpf-next tree?
> Eric is working on a bunch of patches in this area. I'll take his set
> into bpf-next as well and then can apply this patch.
> Just to make sure there are no conflicts.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada