[PATCH] Makefile: Force GNU hashing

[PATCH] Makefile: Force GNU hashing

[Mayuresh Chitale]

The Yocto QA step verifies that binaries and DSOs use DT_GNU_HASH rather than
DT_HASH. If the linker is called directly, then we need to make sure to pass in
the hashing style.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Law <jlaw@ventanamicro.com>
Signed-off-by: Mayuresh Chitale <mchitale@ventanamicro.com>
---
 Makefile | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 730dbd9..7fb8d2d 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ ifeq ($(LD_IS_LLD),y)
 RELAX_FLAG	=	-mno-relax
 USE_LD_FLAG	=	-fuse-ld=lld
 else
-USE_LD_FLAG	=	-fuse-ld=bfd
+USE_LD_FLAG	=	-fuse-ld=bfd -Wl,--hash-style=gnu
 endif
 
 # Check whether the linker supports creating PIEs
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH] Makefile: Force GNU hashing

[Andreas Schwab]

On Aug 14 2023, Mayuresh Chitale wrote:

> The Yocto QA step verifies that binaries and DSOs use DT_GNU_HASH rather than
> DT_HASH. If the linker is called directly, then we need to make sure to pass in
> the hashing style.

Why does it matter?  The ultimate output is a flat binary.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab at suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

[PATCH] Makefile: Force GNU hashing

[Jeff Law]

On 8/14/23 01:40, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Aug 14 2023, Mayuresh Chitale wrote:
> 
>> The Yocto QA step verifies that binaries and DSOs use DT_GNU_HASH rather than
>> DT_HASH. If the linker is called directly, then we need to make sure to pass in
>> the hashing style.
> 
> Why does it matter?  The ultimate output is a flat binary.
It matters because the Yocto QA step will fail.  It doesn't affect the 
behavior of the resulting image though, IIRC.

Jeff

[PATCH] Makefile: Force GNU hashing

[Andreas Schwab]

On Aug 14 2023, Jeff Law wrote:

> On 8/14/23 01:40, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Aug 14 2023, Mayuresh Chitale wrote:
>> 
>>> The Yocto QA step verifies that binaries and DSOs use DT_GNU_HASH rather than
>>> DT_HASH. If the linker is called directly, then we need to make sure to pass in
>>> the hashing style.
>> Why does it matter?  The ultimate output is a flat binary.
> It matters because the Yocto QA step will fail.

Why does it even look at it?  It's only an intermediate build product.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab at suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

[PATCH] Makefile: Force GNU hashing

[Jeff Law]

On 8/14/23 07:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Aug 14 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
> 
>> On 8/14/23 01:40, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> On Aug 14 2023, Mayuresh Chitale wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Yocto QA step verifies that binaries and DSOs use DT_GNU_HASH rather than
>>>> DT_HASH. If the linker is called directly, then we need to make sure to pass in
>>>> the hashing style.
>>> Why does it matter?  The ultimate output is a flat binary.
>> It matters because the Yocto QA step will fail.
> 
> Why does it even look at it?  It's only an intermediate build product.
Because that's how Yocto works?  Hell if I know and it wasn't something 
I wanted to spend a lot of time investigating.  Fighting with Yocto over 
something that doesn't change the behavior of the resulting image isn't 
something I felt was worth a lot of my time -- for various reasons.

jeff

[PATCH] Makefile: Force GNU hashing

[Andreas Schwab]

On Aug 14 2023, Jeff Law wrote:

> On 8/14/23 07:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Aug 14 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/14/23 01:40, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>> On Aug 14 2023, Mayuresh Chitale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Yocto QA step verifies that binaries and DSOs use DT_GNU_HASH rather than
>>>>> DT_HASH. If the linker is called directly, then we need to make sure to pass in
>>>>> the hashing style.
>>>> Why does it matter?  The ultimate output is a flat binary.
>>> It matters because the Yocto QA step will fail.
>> Why does it even look at it?  It's only an intermediate build product.
> Because that's how Yocto works?

Whatever Yocto is, it must be doing something strange.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab at suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

[PATCH] Makefile: Force GNU hashing

[Jeff Law]

On 8/14/23 07:15, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Aug 14 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
> 
>> On 8/14/23 07:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> On Aug 14 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/23 01:40, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 14 2023, Mayuresh Chitale wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Yocto QA step verifies that binaries and DSOs use DT_GNU_HASH rather than
>>>>>> DT_HASH. If the linker is called directly, then we need to make sure to pass in
>>>>>> the hashing style.
>>>>> Why does it matter?  The ultimate output is a flat binary.
>>>> It matters because the Yocto QA step will fail.
>>> Why does it even look at it?  It's only an intermediate build product.
>> Because that's how Yocto works?
> 
> Whatever Yocto is, it must be doing something strange.
There are many things about Yocto that are strange at best.  IMHO Yocto 
is a necessary evil as part of the bring-up process but you want to get 
away from it as soon as possible :-)

If you've never worked with it, consider yourself lucky.  Think of it as 
a mini distro, but with a unique and complex way of describing the 
components of the distro and how they're patched/built, how qa works, etc.

jeff

[PATCH] Makefile: Force GNU hashing

[Andreas Schwab]

If they want GNU hashing, they should configure the linker accordingly,
instead of forcing their policy to everyone else.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab at suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."