| Message ID | 20210917061104.2680133-2-brendanhiggins@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: build kunit tests without structleak plugin | expand |
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:10:59PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > KUnit and structleak don't play nice, so add a makefile variable for > enabling structleak when it complains. > > Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> For a C-d-b, also include a S-o-b: Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> But otherwise, yes, this is good. :) -Kees > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > --- > scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins b/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins > index 952e46876329a..4aad284800355 100644 > --- a/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins > @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF) \ > += -fplugin-arg-structleak_plugin-byref > gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL) \ > += -fplugin-arg-structleak_plugin-byref-all > +ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK > + DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN += -fplugin-arg-structleak_plugin-disable > +endif > +export DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN > gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK) \ > += -DSTRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN > > -- > 2.33.0.464.g1972c5931b-goog >
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:48 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:10:59PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > KUnit and structleak don't play nice, so add a makefile variable for > > enabling structleak when it complains. > > > > Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > For a C-d-b, also include a S-o-b: > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > But otherwise, yes, this is good. :) Yeah, I know that's necessary for the patch to be accepted, but in this case, I don't think your original version of this (it wasn't actually a patch) had a S-o-b on it, so I didn't want to say that you had signed off on something that you didn't. I have run into this situation before and handled it this way - letting the co-developer sign off on the list. Is this something I should avoid in the future? In any case, I will resubmit this now that I have your S-o-b. Thanks!
diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins b/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins index 952e46876329a..4aad284800355 100644 --- a/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins +++ b/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF) \ += -fplugin-arg-structleak_plugin-byref gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL) \ += -fplugin-arg-structleak_plugin-byref-all +ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK + DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN += -fplugin-arg-structleak_plugin-disable +endif +export DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK) \ += -DSTRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN
KUnit and structleak don't play nice, so add a makefile variable for enabling structleak when it complains. Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> --- scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)