| Message ID | 1532593312-19640-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [kvm-unit-tests] Makefiles: Remove the executable bit from the .elf and .flat files | expand |
On 26/07/2018 10:21, Thomas Huth wrote: > The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, > so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, > the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged > in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there > are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
On 26.07.2018 10:21, Thomas Huth wrote: > The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, > so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, > the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged > in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there > are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). > > Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > arm/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > powerpc/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > s390x/Makefile | 1 + > x86/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arm/Makefile.common b/arm/Makefile.common > index 1cf9cdc..e62a978 100644 > --- a/arm/Makefile.common > +++ b/arm/Makefile.common > @@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) $(libgcc) $(libeabi) > -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/arm/flat.lds,--build-id=none,-Ttext=$(start_addr) \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) \ > $(SRCDIR)/lib/auxinfo.c -DPROGNAME=\"$(@:.elf=.flat)\" -DAUXFLAGS=$(AUXFLAGS) > + chmod a-x $@ > > %.flat: %.elf > $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $^ $@ > + chmod a-x $@ > > $(libeabi): $(eabiobjs) > $(AR) rcs $@ $^ > diff --git a/powerpc/Makefile.common b/powerpc/Makefile.common > index 81c5074..af6b9d8 100644 > --- a/powerpc/Makefile.common > +++ b/powerpc/Makefile.common > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) > -T $(SRCDIR)/powerpc/flat.lds --build-id=none \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > + chmod a-x $@ > @echo -n Checking $@ for unsupported reloc types... > @if $(OBJDUMP) -R $@ | grep R_ | grep -v R_PPC64_RELATIVE; then \ > false; \ > @@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf > $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: CFLAGS = -mbig-endian > $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.o > $(LD) -EB -nostdlib -Ttext=0x100 --entry=start --build-id=none -o $@ $< > + chmod a-x $@ > > powerpc_clean: libfdt_clean asm_offsets_clean > $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin \ > diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile > index 6546a02..6b32f2c 100644 > --- a/s390x/Makefile > +++ b/s390x/Makefile > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) > $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ -T $(SRCDIR)/s390x/flat.lds -Ttext=0x10000 \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > + chmod a-x $@ > > arch_clean: asm_offsets_clean > $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/.*.d lib/s390x/.*.d > diff --git a/x86/Makefile.common b/x86/Makefile.common > index 7dcf8c2..0d64284 100644 > --- a/x86/Makefile.common > +++ b/x86/Makefile.common > @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) > %.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) $(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds $(cstart.o) > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) > + chmod a-x $@ > > %.flat: %.elf > $(OBJCOPY) -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ > + chmod a-x $@ > > tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/vmexit.flat $(TEST_DIR)/tsc.flat \ > $(TEST_DIR)/smptest.flat $(TEST_DIR)/port80.flat \ > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
On 07/26/18 10:21, Thomas Huth wrote: > The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, > so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, > the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged > in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there > are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). > > Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > arm/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > powerpc/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > s390x/Makefile | 1 + > x86/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arm/Makefile.common b/arm/Makefile.common > index 1cf9cdc..e62a978 100644 > --- a/arm/Makefile.common > +++ b/arm/Makefile.common > @@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) $(libgcc) $(libeabi) > -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/arm/flat.lds,--build-id=none,-Ttext=$(start_addr) \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) \ > $(SRCDIR)/lib/auxinfo.c -DPROGNAME=\"$(@:.elf=.flat)\" -DAUXFLAGS=$(AUXFLAGS) > + chmod a-x $@ > > %.flat: %.elf > $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $^ $@ > + chmod a-x $@ > > $(libeabi): $(eabiobjs) > $(AR) rcs $@ $^ > diff --git a/powerpc/Makefile.common b/powerpc/Makefile.common > index 81c5074..af6b9d8 100644 > --- a/powerpc/Makefile.common > +++ b/powerpc/Makefile.common > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) > -T $(SRCDIR)/powerpc/flat.lds --build-id=none \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > + chmod a-x $@ > @echo -n Checking $@ for unsupported reloc types... > @if $(OBJDUMP) -R $@ | grep R_ | grep -v R_PPC64_RELATIVE; then \ > false; \ > @@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf > $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: CFLAGS = -mbig-endian > $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.o > $(LD) -EB -nostdlib -Ttext=0x100 --entry=start --build-id=none -o $@ $< > + chmod a-x $@ > > powerpc_clean: libfdt_clean asm_offsets_clean > $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin \ > diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile > index 6546a02..6b32f2c 100644 > --- a/s390x/Makefile > +++ b/s390x/Makefile > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) > $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ -T $(SRCDIR)/s390x/flat.lds -Ttext=0x10000 \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > + chmod a-x $@ > > arch_clean: asm_offsets_clean > $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/.*.d lib/s390x/.*.d > diff --git a/x86/Makefile.common b/x86/Makefile.common > index 7dcf8c2..0d64284 100644 > --- a/x86/Makefile.common > +++ b/x86/Makefile.common > @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) > %.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) $(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds $(cstart.o) > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) > + chmod a-x $@ > > %.flat: %.elf > $(OBJCOPY) -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ > + chmod a-x $@ > > tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/vmexit.flat $(TEST_DIR)/tsc.flat \ > $(TEST_DIR)/smptest.flat $(TEST_DIR)/port80.flat \ > Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Thank you Thomas! Laszlo
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:21:52AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, > so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, > the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged > in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there > are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). > > Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > arm/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > powerpc/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > s390x/Makefile | 1 + > x86/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arm/Makefile.common b/arm/Makefile.common > index 1cf9cdc..e62a978 100644 > --- a/arm/Makefile.common > +++ b/arm/Makefile.common > @@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) $(libgcc) $(libeabi) > -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/arm/flat.lds,--build-id=none,-Ttext=$(start_addr) \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) \ > $(SRCDIR)/lib/auxinfo.c -DPROGNAME=\"$(@:.elf=.flat)\" -DAUXFLAGS=$(AUXFLAGS) > + chmod a-x $@ > > %.flat: %.elf > $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $^ $@ > + chmod a-x $@ > > $(libeabi): $(eabiobjs) > $(AR) rcs $@ $^ > diff --git a/powerpc/Makefile.common b/powerpc/Makefile.common > index 81c5074..af6b9d8 100644 > --- a/powerpc/Makefile.common > +++ b/powerpc/Makefile.common > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) > -T $(SRCDIR)/powerpc/flat.lds --build-id=none \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > + chmod a-x $@ > @echo -n Checking $@ for unsupported reloc types... > @if $(OBJDUMP) -R $@ | grep R_ | grep -v R_PPC64_RELATIVE; then \ > false; \ > @@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf > $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: CFLAGS = -mbig-endian > $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.o > $(LD) -EB -nostdlib -Ttext=0x100 --entry=start --build-id=none -o $@ $< > + chmod a-x $@ > > powerpc_clean: libfdt_clean asm_offsets_clean > $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin \ > diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile > index 6546a02..6b32f2c 100644 > --- a/s390x/Makefile > +++ b/s390x/Makefile > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) > $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ -T $(SRCDIR)/s390x/flat.lds -Ttext=0x10000 \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > + chmod a-x $@ > > arch_clean: asm_offsets_clean > $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/.*.d lib/s390x/.*.d > diff --git a/x86/Makefile.common b/x86/Makefile.common > index 7dcf8c2..0d64284 100644 > --- a/x86/Makefile.common > +++ b/x86/Makefile.common > @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) > %.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) $(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds $(cstart.o) > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) > + chmod a-x $@ > > %.flat: %.elf > $(OBJCOPY) -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ > + chmod a-x $@ > > tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/vmexit.flat $(TEST_DIR)/tsc.flat \ > $(TEST_DIR)/smptest.flat $(TEST_DIR)/port80.flat \ > -- > 1.8.3.1 > Can you please add '@' to the front of all these chmod lines? Otherwise each unit test compilation gets two more lines of uninteresting output when compiling. Thanks, drew
On 07/26/2018 12:11 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:21:52AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >> The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, >> so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, >> the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged >> in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there >> are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). >> >> Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> --- >> arm/Makefile.common | 2 ++ >> powerpc/Makefile.common | 2 ++ >> s390x/Makefile | 1 + >> x86/Makefile.common | 2 ++ >> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arm/Makefile.common b/arm/Makefile.common >> index 1cf9cdc..e62a978 100644 >> --- a/arm/Makefile.common >> +++ b/arm/Makefile.common >> @@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) $(libgcc) $(libeabi) >> -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/arm/flat.lds,--build-id=none,-Ttext=$(start_addr) \ >> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) \ >> $(SRCDIR)/lib/auxinfo.c -DPROGNAME=\"$(@:.elf=.flat)\" -DAUXFLAGS=$(AUXFLAGS) >> + chmod a-x $@ >> >> %.flat: %.elf >> $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $^ $@ >> + chmod a-x $@ >> >> $(libeabi): $(eabiobjs) >> $(AR) rcs $@ $^ >> diff --git a/powerpc/Makefile.common b/powerpc/Makefile.common >> index 81c5074..af6b9d8 100644 >> --- a/powerpc/Makefile.common >> +++ b/powerpc/Makefile.common >> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) >> -T $(SRCDIR)/powerpc/flat.lds --build-id=none \ >> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) >> $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) >> + chmod a-x $@ >> @echo -n Checking $@ for unsupported reloc types... >> @if $(OBJDUMP) -R $@ | grep R_ | grep -v R_PPC64_RELATIVE; then \ >> false; \ >> @@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf >> $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: CFLAGS = -mbig-endian >> $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.o >> $(LD) -EB -nostdlib -Ttext=0x100 --entry=start --build-id=none -o $@ $< >> + chmod a-x $@ >> >> powerpc_clean: libfdt_clean asm_offsets_clean >> $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin \ >> diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile >> index 6546a02..6b32f2c 100644 >> --- a/s390x/Makefile >> +++ b/s390x/Makefile >> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) >> $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ -T $(SRCDIR)/s390x/flat.lds -Ttext=0x10000 \ >> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) >> $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) >> + chmod a-x $@ >> >> arch_clean: asm_offsets_clean >> $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/.*.d lib/s390x/.*.d >> diff --git a/x86/Makefile.common b/x86/Makefile.common >> index 7dcf8c2..0d64284 100644 >> --- a/x86/Makefile.common >> +++ b/x86/Makefile.common >> @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) >> %.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) $(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds $(cstart.o) >> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds \ >> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) >> + chmod a-x $@ >> >> %.flat: %.elf >> $(OBJCOPY) -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ >> + chmod a-x $@ >> >> tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/vmexit.flat $(TEST_DIR)/tsc.flat \ >> $(TEST_DIR)/smptest.flat $(TEST_DIR)/port80.flat \ >> -- >> 1.8.3.1 >> > > Can you please add '@' to the front of all these chmod lines? Otherwise > each unit test compilation gets two more lines of uninteresting output > when compiling. I don't think that we should arbitrarily add a '@' to lines which might be uninteresting at a first glance. What might be uninteresting for you, might be helpful for others to see what is going on. If you're not interested in the full output of make, simply compile with the "-s" option. Thomas
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:58:45PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 07/26/2018 12:11 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:21:52AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, > >> so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, > >> the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged > >> in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there > >> are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). > >> > >> Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> arm/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > >> powerpc/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > >> s390x/Makefile | 1 + > >> x86/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > >> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arm/Makefile.common b/arm/Makefile.common > >> index 1cf9cdc..e62a978 100644 > >> --- a/arm/Makefile.common > >> +++ b/arm/Makefile.common > >> @@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) $(libgcc) $(libeabi) > >> -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/arm/flat.lds,--build-id=none,-Ttext=$(start_addr) \ > >> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) \ > >> $(SRCDIR)/lib/auxinfo.c -DPROGNAME=\"$(@:.elf=.flat)\" -DAUXFLAGS=$(AUXFLAGS) > >> + chmod a-x $@ > >> > >> %.flat: %.elf > >> $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $^ $@ > >> + chmod a-x $@ > >> > >> $(libeabi): $(eabiobjs) > >> $(AR) rcs $@ $^ > >> diff --git a/powerpc/Makefile.common b/powerpc/Makefile.common > >> index 81c5074..af6b9d8 100644 > >> --- a/powerpc/Makefile.common > >> +++ b/powerpc/Makefile.common > >> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) > >> -T $(SRCDIR)/powerpc/flat.lds --build-id=none \ > >> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > >> $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > >> + chmod a-x $@ > >> @echo -n Checking $@ for unsupported reloc types... > >> @if $(OBJDUMP) -R $@ | grep R_ | grep -v R_PPC64_RELATIVE; then \ > >> false; \ > >> @@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf > >> $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: CFLAGS = -mbig-endian > >> $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.o > >> $(LD) -EB -nostdlib -Ttext=0x100 --entry=start --build-id=none -o $@ $< > >> + chmod a-x $@ > >> > >> powerpc_clean: libfdt_clean asm_offsets_clean > >> $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin \ > >> diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile > >> index 6546a02..6b32f2c 100644 > >> --- a/s390x/Makefile > >> +++ b/s390x/Makefile > >> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) > >> $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ -T $(SRCDIR)/s390x/flat.lds -Ttext=0x10000 \ > >> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > >> $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > >> + chmod a-x $@ > >> > >> arch_clean: asm_offsets_clean > >> $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/.*.d lib/s390x/.*.d > >> diff --git a/x86/Makefile.common b/x86/Makefile.common > >> index 7dcf8c2..0d64284 100644 > >> --- a/x86/Makefile.common > >> +++ b/x86/Makefile.common > >> @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) > >> %.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) $(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds $(cstart.o) > >> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds \ > >> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) > >> + chmod a-x $@ > >> > >> %.flat: %.elf > >> $(OBJCOPY) -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ > >> + chmod a-x $@ > >> > >> tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/vmexit.flat $(TEST_DIR)/tsc.flat \ > >> $(TEST_DIR)/smptest.flat $(TEST_DIR)/port80.flat \ > >> -- > >> 1.8.3.1 > >> > > > > Can you please add '@' to the front of all these chmod lines? Otherwise > > each unit test compilation gets two more lines of uninteresting output > > when compiling. > > I don't think that we should arbitrarily add a '@' to lines which might > be uninteresting at a first glance. What might be uninteresting for you, > might be helpful for others to see what is going on. If you're not > interested in the full output of make, simply compile with the "-s" option. > It's not arbitrary. Currently when I build I see lines I want to see. I don't want to use -s to turn them off. With this patch I'll see the lines I want and another 2 lines per unit test that I don't. How can hiding these lines be harmful to a developer? They don't affect the build or run in any way, and, as the commit message says, it's only being done for packaging in the first place. Thanks, drew
On 07/26/18 16:22, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:58:45PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 07/26/2018 12:11 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:21:52AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, >>>> so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, >>>> the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged >>>> in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there >>>> are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). >>>> >>>> Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> arm/Makefile.common | 2 ++ >>>> powerpc/Makefile.common | 2 ++ >>>> s390x/Makefile | 1 + >>>> x86/Makefile.common | 2 ++ >>>> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arm/Makefile.common b/arm/Makefile.common >>>> index 1cf9cdc..e62a978 100644 >>>> --- a/arm/Makefile.common >>>> +++ b/arm/Makefile.common >>>> @@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) $(libgcc) $(libeabi) >>>> -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/arm/flat.lds,--build-id=none,-Ttext=$(start_addr) \ >>>> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) \ >>>> $(SRCDIR)/lib/auxinfo.c -DPROGNAME=\"$(@:.elf=.flat)\" -DAUXFLAGS=$(AUXFLAGS) >>>> + chmod a-x $@ >>>> >>>> %.flat: %.elf >>>> $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $^ $@ >>>> + chmod a-x $@ >>>> >>>> $(libeabi): $(eabiobjs) >>>> $(AR) rcs $@ $^ >>>> diff --git a/powerpc/Makefile.common b/powerpc/Makefile.common >>>> index 81c5074..af6b9d8 100644 >>>> --- a/powerpc/Makefile.common >>>> +++ b/powerpc/Makefile.common >>>> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) >>>> -T $(SRCDIR)/powerpc/flat.lds --build-id=none \ >>>> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) >>>> $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) >>>> + chmod a-x $@ >>>> @echo -n Checking $@ for unsupported reloc types... >>>> @if $(OBJDUMP) -R $@ | grep R_ | grep -v R_PPC64_RELATIVE; then \ >>>> false; \ >>>> @@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf >>>> $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: CFLAGS = -mbig-endian >>>> $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.o >>>> $(LD) -EB -nostdlib -Ttext=0x100 --entry=start --build-id=none -o $@ $< >>>> + chmod a-x $@ >>>> >>>> powerpc_clean: libfdt_clean asm_offsets_clean >>>> $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin \ >>>> diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile >>>> index 6546a02..6b32f2c 100644 >>>> --- a/s390x/Makefile >>>> +++ b/s390x/Makefile >>>> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) >>>> $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ -T $(SRCDIR)/s390x/flat.lds -Ttext=0x10000 \ >>>> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) >>>> $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) >>>> + chmod a-x $@ >>>> >>>> arch_clean: asm_offsets_clean >>>> $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/.*.d lib/s390x/.*.d >>>> diff --git a/x86/Makefile.common b/x86/Makefile.common >>>> index 7dcf8c2..0d64284 100644 >>>> --- a/x86/Makefile.common >>>> +++ b/x86/Makefile.common >>>> @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) >>>> %.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) $(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds $(cstart.o) >>>> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds \ >>>> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) >>>> + chmod a-x $@ >>>> >>>> %.flat: %.elf >>>> $(OBJCOPY) -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ >>>> + chmod a-x $@ >>>> >>>> tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/vmexit.flat $(TEST_DIR)/tsc.flat \ >>>> $(TEST_DIR)/smptest.flat $(TEST_DIR)/port80.flat \ >>>> -- >>>> 1.8.3.1 >>>> >>> >>> Can you please add '@' to the front of all these chmod lines? Otherwise >>> each unit test compilation gets two more lines of uninteresting output >>> when compiling. >> >> I don't think that we should arbitrarily add a '@' to lines which might >> be uninteresting at a first glance. What might be uninteresting for you, >> might be helpful for others to see what is going on. If you're not >> interested in the full output of make, simply compile with the "-s" option. >> > > It's not arbitrary. Currently when I build I see lines I want to see. I > don't want to use -s to turn them off. With this patch I'll see the lines > I want and another 2 lines per unit test that I don't. How can hiding > these lines be harmful to a developer? They don't affect the build or > run in any way, and, as the commit message says, it's only being done > for packaging in the first place. (I'm entirely neutral on this question.) What distinguishes the lines you prefer to see from the new chmod lines? What is the information in the pre-existent lines that is useful to see, and that the new chmod lines lack? I've only ever built kvm-unit-tests once (and an old version at that); the lines that were interesting to me were: gcc -mno-red-zone -m64 -O1 -g -MMD \ -MF x86/.tscdeadline_latency.d -Wall -fomit-frame-pointer \ -fno-stack-protector -nostdlib -o x86/tscdeadline_latency.elf \ -Wl,-T,x86/flat.lds \ x86/tscdeadline_latency.o x86/cstart64.o lib/libcflat.a \ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/libgcc.a objcopy -O elf32-i386 \ x86/tscdeadline_latency.elf \ x86/tscdeadline_latency.flat Here gcc and objcopy produce files with the executable mode bits set, which is likely useful in the general case, but not useful in the specific case. If we hide "chmod" with @, then someone used to objcopy producing executable files might be surprised that the build product is not executable after all -- the "make" output will not explain that. Again, I'm perfectly fine both with and without silencing chmod, I'm just curious about the information that sets the currently visible lines apart from the chmod lines. Thanks! Laszlo
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:59:06PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 07/26/18 16:22, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:58:45PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> On 07/26/2018 12:11 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:21:52AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>>> The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, > >>>> so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, > >>>> the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged > >>>> in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there > >>>> are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). > >>>> > >>>> Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> arm/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > >>>> powerpc/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > >>>> s390x/Makefile | 1 + > >>>> x86/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > >>>> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/arm/Makefile.common b/arm/Makefile.common > >>>> index 1cf9cdc..e62a978 100644 > >>>> --- a/arm/Makefile.common > >>>> +++ b/arm/Makefile.common > >>>> @@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) $(libgcc) $(libeabi) > >>>> -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/arm/flat.lds,--build-id=none,-Ttext=$(start_addr) \ > >>>> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) \ > >>>> $(SRCDIR)/lib/auxinfo.c -DPROGNAME=\"$(@:.elf=.flat)\" -DAUXFLAGS=$(AUXFLAGS) > >>>> + chmod a-x $@ > >>>> > >>>> %.flat: %.elf > >>>> $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $^ $@ > >>>> + chmod a-x $@ > >>>> > >>>> $(libeabi): $(eabiobjs) > >>>> $(AR) rcs $@ $^ > >>>> diff --git a/powerpc/Makefile.common b/powerpc/Makefile.common > >>>> index 81c5074..af6b9d8 100644 > >>>> --- a/powerpc/Makefile.common > >>>> +++ b/powerpc/Makefile.common > >>>> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) > >>>> -T $(SRCDIR)/powerpc/flat.lds --build-id=none \ > >>>> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > >>>> $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > >>>> + chmod a-x $@ > >>>> @echo -n Checking $@ for unsupported reloc types... > >>>> @if $(OBJDUMP) -R $@ | grep R_ | grep -v R_PPC64_RELATIVE; then \ > >>>> false; \ > >>>> @@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf > >>>> $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: CFLAGS = -mbig-endian > >>>> $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.o > >>>> $(LD) -EB -nostdlib -Ttext=0x100 --entry=start --build-id=none -o $@ $< > >>>> + chmod a-x $@ > >>>> > >>>> powerpc_clean: libfdt_clean asm_offsets_clean > >>>> $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin \ > >>>> diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile > >>>> index 6546a02..6b32f2c 100644 > >>>> --- a/s390x/Makefile > >>>> +++ b/s390x/Makefile > >>>> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) > >>>> $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ -T $(SRCDIR)/s390x/flat.lds -Ttext=0x10000 \ > >>>> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > >>>> $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > >>>> + chmod a-x $@ > >>>> > >>>> arch_clean: asm_offsets_clean > >>>> $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/.*.d lib/s390x/.*.d > >>>> diff --git a/x86/Makefile.common b/x86/Makefile.common > >>>> index 7dcf8c2..0d64284 100644 > >>>> --- a/x86/Makefile.common > >>>> +++ b/x86/Makefile.common > >>>> @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) > >>>> %.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) $(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds $(cstart.o) > >>>> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds \ > >>>> $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) > >>>> + chmod a-x $@ > >>>> > >>>> %.flat: %.elf > >>>> $(OBJCOPY) -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ > >>>> + chmod a-x $@ > >>>> > >>>> tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/vmexit.flat $(TEST_DIR)/tsc.flat \ > >>>> $(TEST_DIR)/smptest.flat $(TEST_DIR)/port80.flat \ > >>>> -- > >>>> 1.8.3.1 > >>>> > >>> > >>> Can you please add '@' to the front of all these chmod lines? Otherwise > >>> each unit test compilation gets two more lines of uninteresting output > >>> when compiling. > >> > >> I don't think that we should arbitrarily add a '@' to lines which might > >> be uninteresting at a first glance. What might be uninteresting for you, > >> might be helpful for others to see what is going on. If you're not > >> interested in the full output of make, simply compile with the "-s" option. > >> > > > > It's not arbitrary. Currently when I build I see lines I want to see. I > > don't want to use -s to turn them off. With this patch I'll see the lines > > I want and another 2 lines per unit test that I don't. How can hiding > > these lines be harmful to a developer? They don't affect the build or > > run in any way, and, as the commit message says, it's only being done > > for packaging in the first place. > > (I'm entirely neutral on this question.) What distinguishes the lines > you prefer to see from the new chmod lines? What is the information in > the pre-existent lines that is useful to see, and that the new chmod > lines lack? > > I've only ever built kvm-unit-tests once (and an old version at that); > the lines that were interesting to me were: > > gcc -mno-red-zone -m64 -O1 -g -MMD \ > -MF x86/.tscdeadline_latency.d -Wall -fomit-frame-pointer \ > -fno-stack-protector -nostdlib -o x86/tscdeadline_latency.elf \ > -Wl,-T,x86/flat.lds \ > x86/tscdeadline_latency.o x86/cstart64.o lib/libcflat.a \ > /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/libgcc.a > > objcopy -O elf32-i386 \ > x86/tscdeadline_latency.elf \ > x86/tscdeadline_latency.flat Those are the lines interesting to me as well. And for arm, before this patch, those are pretty much the only lines that are currently output. > > Here gcc and objcopy produce files with the executable mode bits set, > which is likely useful in the general case, but not useful in the > specific case. If we hide "chmod" with @, then someone used to objcopy > producing executable files might be surprised that the build product is > not executable after all -- the "make" output will not explain that. They'll also be surprised that they have a useless .flat file unless they know what they're doing with it. If you're running tests with the scripts then you'll never know if the files have exec bits set or not. If you're not running with the scripts, then I guess you already know what you're doing. Just my opinion of course... > > Again, I'm perfectly fine both with and without silencing chmod, I'm > just curious about the information that sets the currently visible lines > apart from the chmod lines. > I'll never bother to copy+paste chmod lines from the output to use for a manual compile (should I want to experiment with cflags or something). To me, the chmod lines will always just be noise. Thanks, drew
On 07/26/18 10:21, Thomas Huth wrote: > The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, > so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, > the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged > in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there > are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). > > Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > arm/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > powerpc/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > s390x/Makefile | 1 + > x86/Makefile.common | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arm/Makefile.common b/arm/Makefile.common > index 1cf9cdc..e62a978 100644 > --- a/arm/Makefile.common > +++ b/arm/Makefile.common > @@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) $(libgcc) $(libeabi) > -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/arm/flat.lds,--build-id=none,-Ttext=$(start_addr) \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) \ > $(SRCDIR)/lib/auxinfo.c -DPROGNAME=\"$(@:.elf=.flat)\" -DAUXFLAGS=$(AUXFLAGS) > + chmod a-x $@ > > %.flat: %.elf > $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $^ $@ > + chmod a-x $@ > > $(libeabi): $(eabiobjs) > $(AR) rcs $@ $^ > diff --git a/powerpc/Makefile.common b/powerpc/Makefile.common > index 81c5074..af6b9d8 100644 > --- a/powerpc/Makefile.common > +++ b/powerpc/Makefile.common > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) > -T $(SRCDIR)/powerpc/flat.lds --build-id=none \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > + chmod a-x $@ > @echo -n Checking $@ for unsupported reloc types... > @if $(OBJDUMP) -R $@ | grep R_ | grep -v R_PPC64_RELATIVE; then \ > false; \ > @@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf > $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: CFLAGS = -mbig-endian > $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.o > $(LD) -EB -nostdlib -Ttext=0x100 --entry=start --build-id=none -o $@ $< > + chmod a-x $@ > > powerpc_clean: libfdt_clean asm_offsets_clean > $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin \ > diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile > index 6546a02..6b32f2c 100644 > --- a/s390x/Makefile > +++ b/s390x/Makefile > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) > $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ -T $(SRCDIR)/s390x/flat.lds -Ttext=0x10000 \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) > + chmod a-x $@ > > arch_clean: asm_offsets_clean > $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/.*.d lib/s390x/.*.d > diff --git a/x86/Makefile.common b/x86/Makefile.common > index 7dcf8c2..0d64284 100644 > --- a/x86/Makefile.common > +++ b/x86/Makefile.common > @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) > %.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) $(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds $(cstart.o) > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds \ > $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) > + chmod a-x $@ > > %.flat: %.elf > $(OBJCOPY) -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ > + chmod a-x $@ > > tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/vmexit.flat $(TEST_DIR)/tsc.flat \ > $(TEST_DIR)/smptest.flat $(TEST_DIR)/port80.flat \ > For integrity's sake, I must add the following: While I think this change would be technically correct (= the file should not be advertised, after build, as executable), it now seems that the patch would not help with the packaging issue. It appears that the RPM build infrastructure, at least in Fedora28+, ignores the x file mode bits when it decides to color a file as "1" (= 32-bit ELF). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1608852#c2 This behavior looks *entirely inconsistent* with how RPM building seems to work in RHEL7, but that's the situation we got, apparently. I believe this finding makes the commit message *in part* dubious. Therefore, personally I'd be fine if we dropped the patch (although I do believe what it does is still correct, just not with the original justification). Thanks, Laszlo
> For integrity's sake, I must add the following: > > While I think this change would be technically correct (= the file > should not be advertised, after build, as executable), it now seems that > the patch would not help with the packaging issue. > > It appears that the RPM build infrastructure, at least in Fedora28+, > ignores the x file mode bits when it decides to color a file as "1" (= > 32-bit ELF). > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1608852#c2 > > This behavior looks *entirely inconsistent* with how RPM building seems > to work in RHEL7, but that's the situation we got, apparently. > > I believe this finding makes the commit message *in part* dubious. > Therefore, personally I'd be fine if we dropped the patch (although I do > believe what it does is still correct, just not with the original > justification). From a !packaging point of view, this is the right thing to do. These are binary blobs to be loaded into a guest VM, not executables. Thomas, maybe simply drop that part about packaging from the commit message. > > Thanks, > Laszlo >
On 07/27/18 15:46, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> For integrity's sake, I must add the following: >> >> While I think this change would be technically correct (= the file >> should not be advertised, after build, as executable), it now seems that >> the patch would not help with the packaging issue. >> >> It appears that the RPM build infrastructure, at least in Fedora28+, >> ignores the x file mode bits when it decides to color a file as "1" (= >> 32-bit ELF). >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1608852#c2 >> >> This behavior looks *entirely inconsistent* with how RPM building seems >> to work in RHEL7, but that's the situation we got, apparently. >> >> I believe this finding makes the commit message *in part* dubious. >> Therefore, personally I'd be fine if we dropped the patch (although I do >> believe what it does is still correct, just not with the original >> justification). > > From a !packaging point of view, this is the right thing to do. These > are binary blobs to be loaded into a guest VM, not executables. > > Thomas, maybe simply drop that part about packaging from the commit message. That works for me as well, thanks! Laszlo
diff --git a/arm/Makefile.common b/arm/Makefile.common index 1cf9cdc..e62a978 100644 --- a/arm/Makefile.common +++ b/arm/Makefile.common @@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) $(libgcc) $(libeabi) -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/arm/flat.lds,--build-id=none,-Ttext=$(start_addr) \ $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) \ $(SRCDIR)/lib/auxinfo.c -DPROGNAME=\"$(@:.elf=.flat)\" -DAUXFLAGS=$(AUXFLAGS) + chmod a-x $@ %.flat: %.elf $(OBJCOPY) -O binary $^ $@ + chmod a-x $@ $(libeabi): $(eabiobjs) $(AR) rcs $@ $^ diff --git a/powerpc/Makefile.common b/powerpc/Makefile.common index 81c5074..af6b9d8 100644 --- a/powerpc/Makefile.common +++ b/powerpc/Makefile.common @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(LIBFDT_archive) -T $(SRCDIR)/powerpc/flat.lds --build-id=none \ $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) + chmod a-x $@ @echo -n Checking $@ for unsupported reloc types... @if $(OBJDUMP) -R $@ | grep R_ | grep -v R_PPC64_RELATIVE; then \ false; \ @@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: CFLAGS = -mbig-endian $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.elf: $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.o $(LD) -EB -nostdlib -Ttext=0x100 --entry=start --build-id=none -o $@ $< + chmod a-x $@ powerpc_clean: libfdt_clean asm_offsets_clean $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/boot_rom.bin \ diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile index 6546a02..6b32f2c 100644 --- a/s390x/Makefile +++ b/s390x/Makefile @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat) $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ -T $(SRCDIR)/s390x/flat.lds -Ttext=0x10000 \ $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) $(RM) $(@:.elf=.aux.o) + chmod a-x $@ arch_clean: asm_offsets_clean $(RM) $(TEST_DIR)/*.{o,elf} $(TEST_DIR)/.*.d lib/s390x/.*.d diff --git a/x86/Makefile.common b/x86/Makefile.common index 7dcf8c2..0d64284 100644 --- a/x86/Makefile.common +++ b/x86/Makefile.common @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ FLATLIBS = lib/libcflat.a $(libgcc) %.elf: %.o $(FLATLIBS) $(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds $(cstart.o) $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -nostdlib -o $@ -Wl,-T,$(SRCDIR)/x86/flat.lds \ $(filter %.o, $^) $(FLATLIBS) + chmod a-x $@ %.flat: %.elf $(OBJCOPY) -O elf32-i386 $^ $@ + chmod a-x $@ tests-common = $(TEST_DIR)/vmexit.flat $(TEST_DIR)/tsc.flat \ $(TEST_DIR)/smptest.flat $(TEST_DIR)/port80.flat \
The .elf and .flat files are not runnable on the host operating system, so they should not be marked as executable. As we discovered recently, the executable flag can also cause trouble when the files are packaged in an .rpm file, since rpm "colors" the package differently if there are 32-bit or 64-bit executables in the package (for multilib support). Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- arm/Makefile.common | 2 ++ powerpc/Makefile.common | 2 ++ s390x/Makefile | 1 + x86/Makefile.common | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+)