On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 05:14:08AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 8/13/24 10:33, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 05:03:45PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> >>On 8/12/24 10:56, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> >>>The relative RPATH ("./") supplied to linker options in CFLAGS is resolved
> >>>relative to current working directory and not the executable directory,
> >>>which will lead in incorrect resolution when the test executables are run
> >>>from elsewhere. Changing it to $ORIGIN makes it resolve relative
> >>>to the directory in which the executables reside, which is supposedly
> >>>the desired behaviour. This patch also moves these CFLAGS to lib.mk,
> >>>so the RPATH is provided for all selftest binaries, which is arguably
> >>>a useful default.
> >>
> >>Can you elaborate on the erros you would see if this isn't fixed? I understand
> >>that check-rpaths tool - howebver I would like to know how it manifests and
> >
> >One would be unable to execute the test binaries that require additional
> >locally built dynamic libraries outside the directories in which they reside:
> >
> > [build@builder selftests]$ alsa/mixer-test
> > alsa/mixer-test: error while loading shared libraries: libatest.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> >
> >>how would you reproduce this problem while running selftests?
> >
> >This usually doesn't come up in a regular selftests usage so far, as they
> >are usually run via make, and make descends into specific test directories
> >to execute make the respective make targets there, triggering the execution
> >of the specific test bineries.
> >
>
> Right. selftests are run usually via make and when they are installed run through
> a script which descends into specific test directories where the tests are installed.
>
> Unless we see the problem using kselftest use-case, there is no reason the make changes.
The reason has been outlined in the commit message: relative paths in
RPATH/RUNPATH are incorrect and ought to be fixed.
> Sorry I am not going be taking these patches.
I see, by the same token, kernel maintainers reject any patches that fix
compilation/build warnings, I guess.
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
