[gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Gordon Malm]

I'd like to get "distcc" added as one of the FEATURES we are able to RESTRICT.

It is true that RESTRICT="distcc" is usually not the proper solution to 
problems.  But in the case of out-of-tree kernel modules the idea of 
distributing compile jobs to other machines is fundamentally flawed IMO.  
Additionally, there are a few packages in the tree already that will never 
get fixed (or be fixable) and just have some check for FEATURES=distcc && 
die "disable distcc" type stuff.

Thanks,
Gordon Malm (gengor)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 331 bytes --]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:57:17 -0700
Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> But in the case of out-of-tree kernel modules the idea
> of distributing compile jobs to other machines is fundamentally
> flawed IMO.

Why? And how are out of tree kernel modules in any way special when it
comes to distcc?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Gordon Malm]

If you're compiling an out-of-tree module that requires the kernel be compiled 
with support for a particular item and the distccd host's kernel does not 
have that support compiles fail.  Reference bug #120001 (though I know that 
it was properly diagnosed there).

Then there's also this doozie. -> #167844.

Thanks,
Gordon Malm (gengor)

On Saturday, November 1, 2008 14:00:17 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:57:17 -0700
>
> Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > But in the case of out-of-tree kernel modules the idea
> > of distributing compile jobs to other machines is fundamentally
> > flawed IMO.
>
> Why? And how are out of tree kernel modules in any way special when it
> comes to distcc?

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 742 bytes --]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:21:43 -0700
Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If you're compiling an out-of-tree module that requires the kernel be
> compiled with support for a particular item and the distccd host's
> kernel does not have that support compiles fail.  Reference bug
> #120001 (though I know that it was properly diagnosed there).
> 
> Then there's also this doozie. -> #167844.

So far as I can see, when the correct options are passed to a build
system, the only issue is hardened being broken. There doesn't seem to
be any fundamental reason why distcc with a sane compiler can't be used
with kernel modules. If this is the case, wouldn't it be better to get
the hardened compiler fixed?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Gordon Malm]

On Saturday, November 1, 2008 14:28:06 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:21:43 -0700
>
> Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > If you're compiling an out-of-tree module that requires the kernel be
> > compiled with support for a particular item and the distccd host's
> > kernel does not have that support compiles fail.  Reference bug
> > #120001 (though I know that it was properly diagnosed there).
> >
> > Then there's also this doozie. -> #167844.
>
> So far as I can see, when the correct options are passed to a build
> system, the only issue is hardened being broken. There doesn't seem to
> be any fundamental reason why distcc with a sane compiler can't be used
> with kernel modules. If this is the case, wouldn't it be better to get
> the hardened compiler fixed?

I use madwifi-ng extensively and have experienced the same issue with 
madwifi-ng as stated in that bug.  For bug #167844, please read comment #13 
and http://code.google.com/p/distcc/issues/detail?id=25.  There's nothing to 
fix, hardened is doing the right thing as is distcc.  The proper approach is 
to not distribute compiles of kernel modules.

To not get too stuck on a single scenario, I think this would be a useful 
feature and desireable vs. the alternative of FEATURES=${FEATURES/distcc/}.

This is not the first time its been requested, a simple search reveals bugs 
#28300, #80894.

A quick grep shows these packages at minimum have to do some FEATURES checking 
and either pass a config option (if provided) or die "disable distcc and try 
again".
dev-python/pyqwt
media-gfx/sam2p
media-tv/mythtv
media-video/avidemux

Gordon Malm (gengor)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1233 bytes --]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:58:39 -0700
Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I use madwifi-ng extensively and have experienced the same issue with 
> madwifi-ng as stated in that bug.  For bug #167844, please read
> comment #13 and http://code.google.com/p/distcc/issues/detail?id=25.
> There's nothing to fix, hardened is doing the right thing as is
> distcc.  The proper approach is to not distribute compiles of kernel
> modules.

It looks to me like hardened is doing entirely the wrong thing. Thus,
the proper fix is to make hardened behave itself.

> To not get too stuck on a single scenario, I think this would be a
> useful feature and desireable vs. the alternative of
> FEATURES=${FEATURES/distcc/}.
> 
> This is not the first time its been requested, a simple search
> reveals bugs #28300, #80894.

It looks a lot like people are blaming distcc for parallelisation bugs
that aren't distcc related but that happen to be easier to reproduce
when distcc is enabled. Do you have any examples of problems that are
definitely caused by distcc, rather than general parallelisation bugs
or user misconfigurations? RESTRICTing distcc doesn't seem to be an
actual fix for anything...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Gordon Malm]

On Saturday, November 1, 2008 15:11:16 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:58:39 -0700
>
> Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I use madwifi-ng extensively and have experienced the same issue with
> > madwifi-ng as stated in that bug.  For bug #167844, please read
> > comment #13 and http://code.google.com/p/distcc/issues/detail?id=25.
> > There's nothing to fix, hardened is doing the right thing as is
> > distcc.  The proper approach is to not distribute compiles of kernel
> > modules.
>
> It looks to me like hardened is doing entirely the wrong thing. Thus,
> the proper fix is to make hardened behave itself.

It looks to me like you've already made up your mind.  How is hardened doing 
the entirely wrong thing?  What do you propose can be done to "fix" the 
hardened compiler?  What about madwifi-ng?  You are getting increasingly 
narrow in your points of objection.

>
> > To not get too stuck on a single scenario, I think this would be a
> > useful feature and desireable vs. the alternative of
> > FEATURES=${FEATURES/distcc/}.
> >
> > This is not the first time its been requested, a simple search
> > reveals bugs #28300, #80894.
>
> It looks a lot like people are blaming distcc for parallelisation bugs
> that aren't distcc related but that happen to be easier to reproduce
> when distcc is enabled. Do you have any examples of problems that are
> definitely caused by distcc, rather than general parallelisation bugs
> or user misconfigurations? RESTRICTing distcc doesn't seem to be an
> actual fix for anything...

As I said in my first post:

'It is true that RESTRICT="distcc" is usually not the proper solution to 
problems.'

Parallel building problems can often and should be addressed properly.  I 
don't want the answer to every one that comes along to be to add 
RESTRICT="distcc".  This is something to be addressed through developer 
documentation that using RESTRICT="distcc" should be a last resort.

However, in practice making a package parallel-make safe isn't always trivial.  
So what happens in these cases is FEATURES=distcc && die check is put in 
place killing the emerge chain and requiring user intervention.  Either that 
or the bug just lingers and the compile fails somewhere in the middle...

I don't know about palaudis but this is like a one line patch to portage.  But 
silly me, I thought the package manager was there to support the 
distribution.

Gordon Malm (gengor)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2253 bytes --]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:47:09 -0700
Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > It looks to me like hardened is doing entirely the wrong thing.
> > Thus, the proper fix is to make hardened behave itself.
> 
> It looks to me like you've already made up your mind.  How is
> hardened doing the entirely wrong thing?  What do you propose can be
> done to "fix" the hardened compiler?  What about madwifi-ng?  You are
> getting increasingly narrow in your points of objection.

I suggest you get the hardened upstream people to stop abusing the -D
switch to gcc. The distcc people suggest the same.

> Parallel building problems can often and should be addressed
> properly.  I don't want the answer to every one that comes along to
> be to add RESTRICT="distcc".  This is something to be addressed
> through developer documentation that using RESTRICT="distcc" should
> be a last resort.

Uh, RESTRICT=distcc won't even fix parallel make problems. It'll just
make them harder to reproduce on some systems.

> However, in practice making a package parallel-make safe isn't always
> trivial. So what happens in these cases is FEATURES=distcc && die
> check is put in place killing the emerge chain and requiring user
> intervention.  Either that or the bug just lingers and the compile
> fails somewhere in the middle...

...or you could use -j1, which whilst being horrible will at least work.

> I don't know about palaudis but this is like a one line patch to
> portage.  But silly me, I thought the package manager was there to
> support the distribution.

You have yet to demonstrate how RESTRICT=distcc will help. In fact, you
seem to be demonstrating that all it'll do is make a few people apply a
'fix' that won't reliably fix anything.

*If* there's a legitimate use for RESTRICT=distcc then I am entirely in
favour of it. But it looks like there isn't, with every issue being
either a parallelism issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't fix), a user
configuration issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't fix) or a hardened
toolchain bug (for which RESTRICT=distcc is massive overkill, and thus
the wrong solution). You've decided upon a solution before you've
worked out what the problem is.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 782 bytes --]

Gordon Malm wrote:
> It looks to me like you've already made up your mind.  How is hardened doing 
> the entirely wrong thing?

 From the page [1] you mentioned:

"If so, that seems to me like an abuse of the -D option."

The abuse is in changing the compiler behavior based on -D options.

> What do you propose can be done to "fix" the 
> hardened compiler?

 From the same page:

"It would be better for you to remove the patch from gcc where it makes 
-D__KERNEL__ imply -nossp -nopie, and to instead patch the Linux kernel 
build system (Makefiles, etc.) so that it passes "-D__KERNEL__ -nossp 
-nopie" rather than "-D__KERNEL__"."

[1] http://code.google.com/p/distcc/issues/detail?id=25

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Gordon Malm]

On Saturday, November 1, 2008 15:57:52 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Parallel building problems can often and should be addressed
> > properly.  I don't want the answer to every one that comes along to
> > be to add RESTRICT="distcc".  This is something to be addressed
> > through developer documentation that using RESTRICT="distcc" should
> > be a last resort.
>
> Uh, RESTRICT=distcc won't even fix parallel make problems. It'll just
> make them harder to reproduce on some systems.

Why don't you post the whole context?  Here, I'll do it for you:

On Saturday, November 1, 2008 15:11:16 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > It looks a lot like people are blaming distcc for parallelisation bugs
> > that aren't distcc related but that happen to be easier to reproduce
> > when distcc is enabled. Do you have any examples of problems that are
> > definitely caused by distcc, rather than general parallelisation bugs
> > or user misconfigurations? RESTRICTing distcc doesn't seem to be an
> > actual fix for anything...
>
And my full response...
> As I said in my first post:
> 
> 'It is true that RESTRICT="distcc" is usually not the proper solution to 
> problems.'
> 
> Parallel building problems can often and should be addressed properly.  I 
> don't want the answer to every one that comes along to be to add 
> RESTRICT="distcc".  This is something to be addressed through developer 
> documentation that using RESTRICT="distcc" should be a last resort.

You're the one assuming the only purpose would be to mask parallel make 
problems.  Apparently it does have a purpose though since avidemux builds 
fine in parallel but NOT via distcc.


Back to your most recent post
>  *If* there's a legitimate use for RESTRICT=distcc then I am entirely in
> favour of it. But it looks like there isn't, with every issue being
> either a parallelism issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't fix), a user
> configuration issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't fix) or a hardened
> toolchain bug (for which RESTRICT=distcc is massive overkill, and thus
> the wrong solution). You've decided upon a solution before you've
> worked out what the problem is.

You assumed it is a parallelism issue that people are trying to solve.  I 
haven't pointed to any user configuration issues.  Using RESTRICT=distcc on 
kernel modules is hardly overkill.  This isn't openoffice.  I know exactly 
what the problem is, but since you have such a better grasp on it....

On Saturday, November 1, 2008 15:57:52 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:47:09 -0700
>
> Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > It looks to me like hardened is doing entirely the wrong thing.
> > > Thus, the proper fix is to make hardened behave itself.
> >
> > It looks to me like you've already made up your mind.  How is
> > hardened doing the entirely wrong thing?  What do you propose can be
> > done to "fix" the hardened compiler?  What about madwifi-ng?  You are
> > getting increasingly narrow in your points of objection.
>
> I suggest you get the hardened upstream people to stop abusing the -D
> switch to gcc. The distcc people suggest the same.

On Saturday, November 1, 2008 16:28:17 Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Gordon Malm wrote:
> > It looks to me like you've already made up your mind.  How is hardened
> > doing the entirely wrong thing?
>
>  From the page [1] you mentioned:
>
> "If so, that seems to me like an abuse of the -D option."
>
> The abuse is in changing the compiler behavior based on -D options.
>
> > What do you propose can be done to "fix" the
> > hardened compiler?
>
>  From the same page:
>
> "It would be better for you to remove the patch from gcc where it makes
> -D__KERNEL__ imply -nossp -nopie, and to instead patch the Linux kernel
> build system (Makefiles, etc.) so that it passes "-D__KERNEL__ -nossp
> -nopie" rather than "-D__KERNEL__"."
>

We have to build using different specs sets for kernel code than userland.  If 
we can't depend on the __KERNEL__ macro for detection, how else do you 
propose one detect if gcc is building kernel code or not?

Patching an out-of-tree module's build system to pass -fno-PIE works on x86, I 
don't know how this will affect other ARCHes, do either of you?  This could 
potentially get really tricky.  If it can't be done nicely in the eclass for 
every possible kernel release and out-of-tree module, then we get into 
patching *everything* and having to maintain it forward.  So this is just a 
different workaround, a rather heavy-handed and high-maintenance one at that.  
What makes it any better than a simple option to RESTRICT distcc?

I guess the larger question in all this is why does a third party who has 
demonstrated his anti-Hardened (and anti-Gentoo) slant on multiple occasions 
define what goes in our PMS?

Gordon Malm (gengor)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gordon Malm wrote:

<snip a lot of exchanges>

All the technical discussion on the above is perfectly fine, but the way
the arguments are being presented and the tone used by both sides is
getting arguments into a thin line from becoming flames.
Please step back before turning this into another flame festival.

> I guess the larger question in all this is why does a third party who has 
> demonstrated his anti-Hardened (and anti-Gentoo) slant on multiple occasions 
> define what goes in our PMS?

It's not up to a 3rd party to define what will be or not in PMS. Any 3rd
party is free to contribute to the discussion (within boundaries), but
it's up to the PMs folks to reach agreements about PMS and, or if they
can't, up to the Gentoo Council.

> Gordon Malm (gengor)
> 

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkNG6IACgkQcAWygvVEyAKOrgCghGO8W2839jXMaMq9DN3DpWbM
JJMAn0PhLDiKoBayr1juI48tzwa8j8Wc
=EXnX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2573 bytes --]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:29:03 -0700
Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> You're the one assuming the only purpose would be to mask parallel
> make problems.  Apparently it does have a purpose though since
> avidemux builds fine in parallel but NOT via distcc.

Have you conclusively established that they do build fine in parallel?
If so, how? And why do they break in parallel only under distcc? Given
how distcc works, this strikes me as somewhat implausible...

> Back to your most recent post
> >  *If* there's a legitimate use for RESTRICT=distcc then I am
> > entirely in favour of it. But it looks like there isn't, with every
> > issue being either a parallelism issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't
> > fix), a user configuration issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't fix)
> > or a hardened toolchain bug (for which RESTRICT=distcc is massive
> > overkill, and thus the wrong solution). You've decided upon a
> > solution before you've worked out what the problem is.
> 
> You assumed it is a parallelism issue that people are trying to
> solve.  I haven't pointed to any user configuration issues.  Using
> RESTRICT=distcc on kernel modules is hardly overkill.  This isn't
> openoffice.  I know exactly what the problem is, but since you have
> such a better grasp on it....

RESTRICT=distcc on kernel modules is unnecessary for the large
proportion of users who don't use hardened. RESTRICTs can't be set
dependent upon whether or not something like hardenened is enabled;
other mechanisms are available that can be. So why aren't you
considering those other mechanisms?

> We have to build using different specs sets for kernel code than
> userland.  If we can't depend on the __KERNEL__ macro for detection,
> how else do you propose one detect if gcc is building kernel code or
> not?

A macro is just a macro. All it does is affect the preprocessor stage.
Hardened is trying to abuse it for something else entirely, which is why
you're encountering problems.

> What makes it any better than a simple option to RESTRICT distcc?

You still appear to be confusing "RESTRICT distcc" and "provide a
mechanism for selectively disabling distcc". They are entirely
different things.

> I guess the larger question in all this is why does a third party who
> has demonstrated his anti-Hardened (and anti-Gentoo) slant on
> multiple occasions define what goes in our PMS?

Uh, that's your answer to technical objections to a proposal? You
aren't prepared to defend your proposal on its merits?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Gordon Malm]

On Sunday, November 2, 2008 03:26:14 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:29:03 -0700
>
> Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > You're the one assuming the only purpose would be to mask parallel
> > make problems.  Apparently it does have a purpose though since
> > avidemux builds fine in parallel but NOT via distcc.
>
> Have you conclusively established that they do build fine in parallel?
> If so, how? And why do they break in parallel only under distcc? Given
> how distcc works, this strikes me as somewhat implausible...

Yes it builds in parallel.  By compiling it in parallel.  I don't know why and 
don't care to investigate for you.  It's not my package, I'm not QA and my 
team is short staffed enough as it is.  We have to take care of our own 
backyard.  Maybe you could investigate the answers to your own questions?  
How about you at least feign attempt at answering my questions for a change?

>
> > Back to your most recent post
> >
> > >  *If* there's a legitimate use for RESTRICT=distcc then I am
> > > entirely in favour of it. But it looks like there isn't, with every
> > > issue being either a parallelism issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't
> > > fix), a user configuration issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't fix)
> > > or a hardened toolchain bug (for which RESTRICT=distcc is massive
> > > overkill, and thus the wrong solution). You've decided upon a
> > > solution before you've worked out what the problem is.
> >
> > You assumed it is a parallelism issue that people are trying to
> > solve.  I haven't pointed to any user configuration issues.  Using
> > RESTRICT=distcc on kernel modules is hardly overkill.  This isn't
> > openoffice.  I know exactly what the problem is, but since you have
> > such a better grasp on it....
>
> RESTRICT=distcc on kernel modules is unnecessary for the large
> proportion of users who don't use hardened. RESTRICTs can't be set
> dependent upon whether or not something like hardenened is enabled;
> other mechanisms are available that can be. So why aren't you
> considering those other mechanisms?

I agree with the first sentence, never said otherwise.  Who says I am not 
considering them?  In fact, I have stated that I am.  They are just more 
hackish than adding the ability to RESTRICT distcc, hence my reason for 
soliciting such a feature.  I'm surprised that you'd suggest this after 
debasing a RESTRICT option on the same grounds.

>
> > We have to build using different specs sets for kernel code than
> > userland.  If we can't depend on the __KERNEL__ macro for detection,
> > how else do you propose one detect if gcc is building kernel code or
> > not?
>
> A macro is just a macro. All it does is affect the preprocessor stage.
> Hardened is trying to abuse it for something else entirely, which is why
> you're encountering problems.

You can cry "abuse" all you want.  You FAIL to offer any alternatives or 
solutions.  I'll ask again, how do you detect that you are compiling code 
destined to be run in-kernel from within gcc without checking for the 
__KERNEL__ macro?  I think we both know the answer.

We can't just hack the eclass to pass -fno-PIE because a particular package 
might build more than just the kernel module itself.  Patching kbuild in our 
sources doesn't address any modules that don't use in-tree kbuild and is 
stupid in so many ways anyway.  That leaves patching every out-of-tree module 
in portage manually and maintain those patches forward which would be very 
time/effort intensive on an ongoing basis.

Go ahead and forget about it though.  I'm done with this discussion.  Because 
we rely on the __KERNEL__ macro to determine which flags to apply, it only 
makes sense to patch in-portage distcc in the case of hardened to pass it.  
And that's exactly what I'll be doing.  Problem solved and I like that option 
better anyway.  Sorry to everyone who e-mailed me who thought RESTRICT=distcc 
would be somewhat useful.

>
> > I guess the larger question in all this is why does a third party who
> > has demonstrated his anti-Hardened (and anti-Gentoo) slant on
> > multiple occasions define what goes in our PMS?
>
> Uh, that's your answer to technical objections to a proposal? You
> aren't prepared to defend your proposal on its merits?

Why are you assuming this point is *at all* related to my proposal?  It's not.  
It's about Gentoo.  But I stand corrected, a bunch of people rushed to tell 
me you don't actually determine anything. ;)

Gordon Malm (gengor)

P.S.  I've seen enough of these threads from you to know that you can't help 
but respond with another post that does a lot of objecting but offers no 
solutions.  Go ahead and post again so you can feel like you had the last 
word, now is your chance, I won't be posting back.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3896 bytes --]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 12:11:10 -0700
Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Have you conclusively established that they do build fine in
> > parallel? If so, how? And why do they break in parallel only under
> > distcc? Given how distcc works, this strikes me as somewhat
> > implausible...
> 
> Yes it builds in parallel.  By compiling it in parallel.  I don't
> know why and don't care to investigate for you.  It's not my package,
> I'm not QA and my team is short staffed enough as it is.  We have to
> take care of our own backyard.  Maybe you could investigate the
> answers to your own questions? How about you at least feign attempt
> at answering my questions for a change?

If you think compiling it in parallel confirms that it builds in
parallel, you're reaffirming my growing suspicion that you're entirely
wrong about distcc being responsible for anything other than hardened
brokenness...

> > RESTRICT=distcc on kernel modules is unnecessary for the large
> > proportion of users who don't use hardened. RESTRICTs can't be set
> > dependent upon whether or not something like hardenened is enabled;
> > other mechanisms are available that can be. So why aren't you
> > considering those other mechanisms?
> 
> I agree with the first sentence, never said otherwise.  Who says I am
> not considering them?  In fact, I have stated that I am.  They are
> just more hackish than adding the ability to RESTRICT distcc, hence
> my reason for soliciting such a feature.  I'm surprised that you'd
> suggest this after debasing a RESTRICT option on the same grounds.

And that brings us to the other thing you don't understand: RESTRICT is
a global, system independent, invariant metadata key. Things in
RESTRICT are in RESTRICT because they have to be known in situations
where those constraints are in effect. Things that do not have to be
known at the metadata level shouldn't be in metadata.

> > A macro is just a macro. All it does is affect the preprocessor
> > stage. Hardened is trying to abuse it for something else entirely,
> > which is why you're encountering problems.
> 
> You can cry "abuse" all you want.  You FAIL to offer any alternatives
> or solutions.  I'll ask again, how do you detect that you are
> compiling code destined to be run in-kernel from within gcc without
> checking for the __KERNEL__ macro?  I think we both know the answer.

I suggest you talk to hardened upstream and see what they have to say
about it. What have they offered as justification for using -D in a way
in which no-one else uses it? What are their objections to switching to
an approach that doesn't break the preprocessor model?

> Sorry to everyone who e-mailed me who thought RESTRICT=distcc would
> be somewhat useful.

Those people are mistaken.

> > Uh, that's your answer to technical objections to a proposal? You
> > aren't prepared to defend your proposal on its merits?
> 
> Why are you assuming this point is *at all* related to my proposal?
> It's not. It's about Gentoo.  But I stand corrected, a bunch of
> people rushed to tell me you don't actually determine anything. ;)

So you don't care about whether your solution is right?

You are proposing to add a metadata invariant option for a condition
that isn't metadata invariant and that, by being made metadata
invariant, means it's being disabled for everyone rather than by the
small number of users who might need it. In addition, you can't
demonstrate any cases where this option is genuinely useful, other than
as a workaround for a hardened bug that you haven't contacted upstream
about, and when used to work around said hardened bug the scope of the
change isn't limited to hardened.

You still haven't explained why you don't do something like:

    broken_hardened_compiler && export DISTCC_HOSTS=localhost

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Steve Long]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 12:11:10 -0700
> Gordon Malm <gengor@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > Have you conclusively established that they do build fine in
>> > parallel? If so, how?

>> Yes it builds in parallel.  By compiling it in parallel.

> If you think compiling it in parallel confirms that it builds in
> parallel, you're reaffirming my growing suspicion that you're entirely
> wrong about distcc being responsible for anything other than hardened
> brokenness...
>
Well my understanding of parallel make is that it would show some issues but
not all. I'd hope you were trying to say: "Build it via distcc with N
virtual hosts" or sth along those lines.
 
>> > RESTRICT=distcc on kernel modules is unnecessary for the large
>> > proportion of users who don't use hardened. RESTRICTs can't be set
>> > dependent upon whether or not something like hardenened is enabled;
>> > other mechanisms are available that can be. So why aren't you
>> > considering those other mechanisms?
>> 
>> I agree with the first sentence, never said otherwise.  Who says I am
>> not considering them?  In fact, I have stated that I am.
More why hasn't he proposed them already.

>> They are 
>> just more hackish than adding the ability to RESTRICT distcc, hence
>> my reason for soliciting such a feature.  I'm surprised that you'd
>> suggest this after debasing a RESTRICT option on the same grounds.
> 
> And that brings us to the other thing you don't understand: RESTRICT is
> a global, system independent, invariant metadata key. Things in
> RESTRICT are in RESTRICT because they have to be known in situations
> where those constraints are in effect.
"those constraint are in effect" isn't a good way of explaining that imo.

> Things that do not have to be 
> known at the metadata level shouldn't be in metadata.
>
Yeah, stuff that always applies, no matter what.
 
>> Sorry to everyone who e-mailed me who thought RESTRICT=distcc would
>> be somewhat useful.
Well a user could always turn off FEATURES externally, which isn't hard to
automate[2]; developers are notoriously bad at defining use-cases.

> 
> Those people are mistaken.
> 
>> > Uh, that's your answer to technical objections to a proposal? You
>> > aren't prepared to defend your proposal on its merits?

I think those two bits go nicely together.

It's not supposed to be a fight, btw.
>> 
>> Why are you assuming this point is *at all* related to my proposal?
>> It's not. It's about Gentoo.  But I stand corrected, a bunch of
>> people rushed to tell me you don't actually determine anything. ;)
> 
> So you don't care about whether your solution is right?
>
*sigh*
 
> You are proposing to add a metadata invariant option for a condition
> that isn't metadata invariant and that, by being made metadata
> invariant, means it's being disabled for everyone rather than by the
> small number of users who might need it. In addition, you can't
> demonstrate any cases where this option is genuinely useful, other than
> as a workaround for a hardened bug that you haven't contacted upstream
> about, and when used to work around said hardened bug the scope of the
> change isn't limited to hardened.
>
I agree this case isn't the best one, nor am I in favour of this RESTRICT.
I'm totally neutral on it as a solution. I can envisage wanting to restrict
compilation to the local machine, but I'm not bothered about how it gets
done. My instinct would be to err toward giving the control to the ebuild
maintainer, with a clear QA policy, perhaps around making it something that
had to be reviewed on every bump (QA script to watch ebuild as long it has
the RESTRICT, unless it's proprietary.)

Much as we might want perfect builds, they don't always happen, nor do we
always have time to fix upstream bugs, however minor they turn out to be.

> You still haven't explained why you don't do something like:
> 
>     broken_hardened_compiler && export DISTCC_HOSTS=localhost
> 
Still it would have been easier on the reader if you'd just mentioned this
first.

[1] http://hardened.gentooexperimental.org/trac/secure/
[2] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-546828.html

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Peter Volkov]

В Вск, 02/11/2008 в 12:11 -0700, Gordon Malm пишет:
> You can cry "abuse" all you want.  You FAIL to offer any alternatives or 
> solutions.  I'll ask again, how do you detect that you are compiling code 
> destined to be run in-kernel from within gcc without checking for the 
> __KERNEL__ macro?  I think we both know the answer.

Gordon, as far as I see our linux-mod.eclass builds each kernel module
separately and it is possible to modify it to pass CFLAGS you wish for
kernel modules only and as such avoid using __KERNEL__ macro for this...

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[Gordon Malm]

On Monday, November 3, 2008 02:22:12 Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Вск, 02/11/2008 в 12:11 -0700, Gordon Malm пишет:
> > You can cry "abuse" all you want.  You FAIL to offer any alternatives or
> > solutions.  I'll ask again, how do you detect that you are compiling code
> > destined to be run in-kernel from within gcc without checking for the
> > __KERNEL__ macro?  I think we both know the answer.
>
> Gordon, as far as I see our linux-mod.eclass builds each kernel module
> separately and it is possible to modify it to pass CFLAGS you wish for
> kernel modules only and as such avoid using __KERNEL__ macro for this...

Peter, with much respect, this doesn't really address the question.  Here is 
the relevant snippet of hardened's gcc specs:

%(cc1_cpu) %{profile:-p} %{!D__KERNEL__: %{!static: %{!fno-PIC: %{!fno-pic: %{!shared: %{!nostdlib: %{!nostartfiles: %{!fno-PIE: %{!fno-pie: %{!nopie: %{!fPIC:
%{!fpic:-fPIE}}} } } } } } } } }  %{!nostdlib: %{!fno-stack-protector: -fstack-protector %{!D_LIBC: %{!D_LIBC_REENTRANT: %{!fno-stack-protector-all: -fstack-protector-all} } } } } }

As you can see the __KERNEL__ macro is checked to decide which gcc specs to 
apply any time hardened's gcc compiles anything.  Patching linux-mod.eclass 
isn't going to do anything to break our reliance on the __KERNEL__ macro.

What patching linux-mod.eclass *would* allow us to do is not patch distcc to 
pass -D__KERNEL__ (which I have already done in the case of USE="hardened", 
so really this is solved).  The limitations of the linux-mod.eclass patching 
approach is that it wouldn't work for any modules that use a standalone build 
system (dumb as it that might be) instead of kbuild or any module being 
compiled outside of portage (kbuild or not).

The linux-mod.eclass hacking could get pretty ugly.  I haven't looked deeply 
into it but KBUILD_CFLAGS is not yet defined at the time emake is called that 
I can tell, so I don't think it will be as simple as adding something like 
KBUILD_CFLAGS="${KBUILD_CFLAGS} -fmy -fflags -fhere".  If I'm wrong please 
let me know, I'd be grateful. :)

There's potentially a lot of conditionals involved as well as far as what 
flags to add for a diversity of ARCHes, what the available out-of-tree 
modules want for themselves, etc.  Overall, linux-mod.eclass could start to 
look really nasty and I think it would take quite awhile (for me alone at 
least) to figure out a workable solution, if even possible.  When accounting 
that this would only address the problem for modules using Kbuild and built 
within portage - I don't think its worth it for a partial solution.

Patching KBUILD_CFLAGS in the kernel sources themselves works, but if we don't 
do that for every kernel portage we restrict users to using hardened-sources 
when running a hardened toolchain w/o the hardened kernel is a perfectly 
valid configuration.  They wouldn't be able to use a non-gentoo provided 
kernel without patching it as well.  Plus, we're just *not* going to have 
every kernel in the tree have a patch conditional on USE="hardened" (ick :).

Best regards,
Gordon Malm (gengor)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Add RESTRICT="distcc" capability

[David Leverton]

On Saturday 01 November 2008 20:57:17 Gordon Malm wrote:
> I'd like to get "distcc" added as one of the FEATURES we are able to
> RESTRICT.

Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, does it fix all the known 
issues if the ebuild sets DISTCC_HOSTS="localhost" in the environment?