On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:39 AM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:26 AM Nick Desaulniers > <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 4:59 AM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 5:13 AM Nick Desaulniers > > > <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:00 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/Makefile b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/Makefile > > > > > index dba6a83bc349..93792b457b81 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/Makefile > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/Makefile > > > > > @@ -17,8 +17,7 @@ KCOV_INSTRUMENT_perf_event.o := n > > > > > KCSAN_SANITIZE_common.o := n > > > > > > > > > > # Make sure load_percpu_segment has no stackprotector > > > > > -nostackp := $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector) > > > > > -CFLAGS_common.o := $(nostackp) > > > > > +CFLAGS_common.o := -fno-stack-protector > > > > > > > > Any time I see `:=` assignment to a CFLAGS variable, it's a red flag > > > > for overwriting existing CFLAGS, which is a common source of bugs. I > > > > recognize the kernel is current a mix and match for: > > > > > > > > CFLAGS_<file>.o > > > > > > > > rules to either use `+=` or `:=`, but I wish we were consistent, and > > > > consistent in our use of `+=`. For those rules, is there a difference > > > > between the use of `+=` and `:=` like there is for the more general > > > > case of appending to KBUILD_CFLAGS? If not, it's ok to match the > > > > existing style, but it's curious to me in this patch to see a mixed > > > > use of `+=` and `:=`. > > > > > > > > > I think Kees mostly answered your question. > > > > > > Let me add some comments. > > > > > > > > > '+=' is the most used in kernel Makefiles, but > > > ':=' and '=' are also used. > > > > > > So, you are right, we are inconsistent. > > > This applies to not only CFLAGS_<file>.o, but also obj-y, etc. > > > > > > For example, > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v5.7/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile#L15 > > > 'obj-y :=' works since it is the first assignment to obj-y in that file. > > > 'obj-y +=' also works, of course. > > > > > > We can consistently use '+=' everywhere, but I do not send > > > patches for churn. > > > > > > > > > You can use any assignment operator to CFLAGS_<file>.o > > > if it is the first assignment in the Makefile. > > > Using '+=' is robust for future code insertion/removal, though. > > > > > > > > > If the right-hand side contains variable references, > > > there is important difference in the behavior. > > > > > > You may know two flavors in variables > > > (https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Flavors) > > > > Cool, thanks for all the info. With that, I'm happy with this patch. > > > > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > CFLAGS_foo.o := $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector) > > > The cc-option is expanded immediately when this line is parsed. > > > (So, the compiler is invoked for 'make clean' too) > > > > > > > > > CFLAGS_foo.o += $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector) > > > If this is the first assignment in the file, > > > '+=' act as '=', so the evaluation of cc-option > > > is delayed until $(CFLAGS_foo.o) is expanded. > > > (So, the compiler is NOT invoked for 'make clean') > > > > Ah, I think that may explain: I've been seeing the occasional warning > > from $(NM) when running `make clean` for ARCH=arm, I'll bet that's > > where this is coming from then. Next time I reproduce it, I'll try to > > find maybe where we're using `:=` or `=` with `$(NM)`. > > > > Maybe arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile, KBSS_SZ is evaluated for > > `make clean`? (If you start an arm build, but kill it before vmlinux > > is created, then `make clean` I suspect that KBSS_SZ is evaluated?) > > $ ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- make LLVM=1 -j71 > $ rm vmlinux > $ ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- make LLVM=1 -j71 clean > llvm-nm: error: arch/arm/boot/compressed/../../../../vmlinux: No such > file or directory. yeah, I had noticed this noise, but I did not get around to digging into it. > I suspect I see this from doing an ARCH=arm build, then building a > different ARCH and killing the build before vmlinux is produced or > `make clean` for a different ARCH, then run a `make clean` for > ARCH=arm. > > Is the above (regarding lazy evaluation) not true for LDFLAGS_vmlinux? > I would have thought this would work: No, this does not work. LDFLAGS_vmlinux is assigned by '=', so it already has the lazy expansion flavor. Unexporting LDFLAGS_vmlinux will fix it. (I may write a better patch, though) diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile b/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile index 00602a6fba04..fab54b1c39aa 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile @@ -131,6 +131,8 @@ LDFLAGS_vmlinux += -X # Next argument is a linker script LDFLAGS_vmlinux += -T +unexport LDFLAGS_vmlinux + # For __aeabi_uidivmod lib1funcs = $(obj)/lib1funcs.o -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
