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