On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 9:27 PM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 09:05:29PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 7:44 PM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 07:15:50PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me add more context to my question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in the timing when
> > > > > > 'pkg-config --print-variables kmod | grep module_directory'
> > > > > > is executed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Build a SRPM on machine A
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Copy the SRPM from machine A to machine B
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Run rpmbuild on machine B to build the SRPM into a RPM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. Copy the RPM from machine B to machine C
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. Install the RPM to machine C
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I am aware the typical use case is two step:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. run make rpm-pkg on machine A
> > > > > 2. install the binary rpm on machine C that might not have build tools
> > > > > or powerful enough CPU
> > > > >
> > > > > While it's theoretically possible to use the srpm to rebuild the binary
> > > > > rpm independently of the kernel git tree I am not aware of people
> > > > > commonly doing this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If I correctly understand commit
> > > > 8818039f959b2efc0d6f2cb101f8061332f0c77e,
> > > > those Redhat guys pack a SRPM on a local machine,
> > > > then send it to their build server called 'koji'.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, there is no reason
> > > > to have 'make srcrpm-pkg'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe "A == B" is not always true,
> > > > but we can assume "distro(A) == distro(B)" is always met
> > > > for simplicity.
> > > >
> > > > So, I am OK with configuration at the SRPM time.
> > >
> > > Even if the distro does not match it will likely work to configure SRPM
> > > for non-matching distro and then build it on the target distro but I have
> > > not tested it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your approach specifies %{MODLIB} as a fixed string
> > when generating kernel.spec, i.e. at the SRPM time.
> >
> >
> > %files
> > %defattr (-, root, root)
> > -/lib/modules/%{KERNELRELEASE}
> > -%exclude /lib/modules/%{KERNELRELEASE}/build
> > +%{MODLIB}
> > +%exclude %{MODLIB}/build
> > /boot/*
> >
> >
> > Then, how to change the path later?
>
> Why would you need to change the path later?
>
> The SRPM has sources, it does not need to build on the system on which
> it is authored if it is intended for another distribution.
>
> Of course, you would need to know for what distribution and where it
> wants its modules so that you can specify the location when creating the
> SRPM.
Simply I wrongly understood your description.
If you manage to correctly configure for the target distro
when building SRPM, that's fine.
>
> > > > > If rebuilding the source rpm on a different machine from where the git
> > > > > tree is located, and possibly on a different distribution is desirable
> > > > > then the detection of the KERNEL_MODULE_DIRECTORY should be added in the
> > > > > rpm spec file as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, we are most interested in the module path
> > > > > > of machine C, but it is difficult/impossible to
> > > > > > guess it at the time of building.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can assume machine B == machine C.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are the second most interested in the module
> > > > > > path on machine B.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The module path of machine A is not important.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I am asking where you would inject
> > > > > > 'pkg-config --print-variables kmod | grep module_directory'.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't. I don't think there will be a separate machine B.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I can't really either - so far any attempt at adding support for
> > > > > this has been rejected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Technically the KERNEL_MODULE_DIRECTORY could be set in two steps - one
> > > > > giving the script to run, and one running it, and then it could be run
> > > > > independently in the SRPM as well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At first, I thought your patch [1] was very ugly,
> > > > but I do not think it is so ugly if cleanly implemented.
> > > >
> > > > It won't hurt to allow users to specify the middle part of MODLIB.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are two options.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [A] Add 'MOD_PREFIX' to specify the middle part of MODLIB
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The top Makefile will look as follows:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > MODLIB = $(INSTALL_MOD_PATH)$(MOD_PREFIX)/lib/modules/$(KERNELRELEASE)
> > > > export MODLIB
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is easier than specifying the entire MODLIB, but you still need
> > > > to manually pass "MOD_PREFIX=/usr" from an env variable or
> > > > the command line.
> > > >
> > > > If MOD_PREFIX is not given, MODLIB is the same as the current one.
> > > >
> > > > [B] Support a dynamic configuration as well
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > MOD_PREFIX ?= $(shell pkg-config --variable=module_prefix libkmod 2>/dev/null)
> > > > export MOD_PREFIX
> > > >
> > > > MODLIB = $(INSTALL_MOD_PATH)$(MOD_PREFIX)/lib/modules/$(KERNELRELEASE)
> > > > export MODLIB
> > >
> > > That's basically the same thing as the patch that has been rejected.
> > >
> > > I used := to prevent calling pkg-config every time MODLIB is used but it
> > > might not be the most flexible wrt overrides.
> >
> > That's good you care about the cost of $(shell ) invocations.
> >
> > := is evaluated one time at maximum, but one time at minimum.
> >
> > $(shell ) is always invoked for non-build targets as
> > "make clean", "make help", etc.
> > That is what I care about.
> >
> >
> > ?= is a recursive variable.
> >
> > The workaround for one-time evaluation is here,
> > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?64746#comment2
> >
> > However, that is not a problem because I can do it properly somehow,
> > for example, with "private export".
>
> That's good to know.
>
> > > > If MOD_PREFIX is given from an env variable or from the command line,
> > > > it is respected.
> > > >
> > > > If "pkg-config --variable=module_prefix libkmod" works,
> > > > that configuration is applied.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, MOD_PREFIX is empty, i.e. fall back to the current behavior.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I prefer 'MOD_PREFIX' to 'KERNEL_MODULE_DIRECTORY' in your patch [1]
> > > > because "|| echo /lib/modules" can be omitted.
> > > >
> > > > I do not think we will have such a crazy distro that
> > > > installs modules under /opt/ directory.
> > >
> > > However, I can easily imagine a distribution that would want to put
> > > modules in /usr/lib-amd64-linux/modules.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, it is not easy for me.
> >
> > What is the background of your thought?
>
> That's where every other library and module would go on distributions
> that care about ability to install packages for multiple architectures
> at the same time. AFAIK the workaround is to inclclude the CPU
> architecture in extraversion for the kernel to fit.
In my system (Ubuntu), I see the directory paths
/usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/lib/
/usr/i686-linux-gnu/lib/
/usr/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/
If there were such a crazy distro that supports multiple kernel arches
within a single image, modules might be installed:
/usr/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/module/<version>/
I have never seen a distro with /usr/lib-<triplet> hierarchy.
But, I have no idea, since this discussion is hypothetical after all.
> > >
> > > > I could not understand why you inserted
> > > > "--print-variables kmod 2>/dev/null | grep '^module_directory$$' >/dev/null"
> > > > but I guess the reason is the same.
> > > > "pkg-config --variable=module_directory kmod" always succeeds,
> > > > so "|| echo /lib/modules" is never processed.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's the semantics of the tool. The jq version was slightly less
> > > convoluted but required additional tool for building the kernel.
> >
> >
> > It IS convoluted.
>
> That's unfortunate result of how the pkgconfig tool works. By now it is
> even too late to complain to the tool author because it's been like that
> forever, best bet is to to use it as is or pick a different tool for
> configuration.
"pkg-config --variable=<name>" returns its value.
It is pretty simple, and I do not think it is a big problem.
Your code is long, but the reason is that you implemented
it in that way.
If you go with KERNEL_MODULE_DIRECTORY for max flexibility,
KERNEL_MODULE_DIRECTORY := $(or $(shell pkg-config
--variable=module_directory kmod 2>/dev/null),/lib/modules)
should work with less characters and less process forks.
But, now I started to prefer confining the long code
into the shell script, "scripts/modinst-dir",
and calling it where needed.
>
> > > > I do not know why you parsed kmod.pc instead of libkmod.pc [2]
> > >
> > > Because it's kmod property, not libkmod property.
> > >
> > > Distributions would install libkmod.pc only with development files
> > > whereas the kmod.pc should be installed with the binaries.
> >
> >
> > This is up to the kmod maintainer.
> >
> > If they agree, I do not mind where the configuration comes from.
>
> So far it has not been commented on. Maybe it's time for a ping.
>
> Thanks
>
> Michal
>
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kbuild/20230718120348.383-1-msuchanek@xxxxxxx/
> > > > [2] https://github.com/kmod-project/kmod/blob/v31/configure.ac#L295
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
