Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756118AbcCNV0N (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:26:13 -0400 Received: from r00tworld.com ([212.85.137.150]:58833 "EHLO r00tworld.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751219AbcCNV0M (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:26:12 -0400 From: "PaX Team" To: Emese Revfy , Masahiro Yamada Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 22:25:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] GCC plugin infrastructure Reply-to: pageexec@freemail.hu CC: Linux Kbuild mailing list , spender@grsecurity.net, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Michal Marek , Kees Cook , linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, fengguang.wu@intel.com, dvyukov@google.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List Message-ID: <56E72C58.28997.25D483C7@pageexec.freemail.hu> In-reply-to: References: <20160307000208.1bec3e7dc874489d1b4fcbb4@gmail.com>, <20160307000427.c82f18670568e1e656fc9532@gmail.com>, X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.71.565) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.12 (r00tworld.com [212.85.137.150]); Mon, 14 Mar 2016 22:25:40 +0100 (CET) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2255 Lines: 56 On 11 Mar 2016 at 15:25, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > diff --git a/scripts/gcc-plugin.sh b/scripts/gcc-plugin.sh > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..eaa4fce > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/scripts/gcc-plugin.sh > > @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ > > +#!/bin/sh > > +srctree=$(dirname "$0") > > +gccplugins_dir=$($3 -print-file-name=plugin) > > +plugincc=$($1 -E -x c++ - -o /dev/null -I"${srctree}"/../tools/gcc -I"${gccplugins_dir}"/include 2>&1 < > +#include "gcc-common.h" > > > Maybe because it is not located at the same directory? [snip] > > +#include "emit-rtl.h" > > +#include "debug.h" > > +#include "target.h" > > +#include "langhooks.h" > > +#include "cfgloop.h" > > +#include "cgraph.h" > > +#include "opts.h" > > All of these are included by "...", not <...>. > > > As mentioned above, I want you to use "..." style > when you need to use relative path from the source. > > I do not see most of them in tools/gcc/. no, that'd be incorrect for several reasons. first, the rule to use <...> vs. "..." include directives is not about the header being in the same directory but whether the header is a system header or one provided by the given program. roughly speaking, system headers are those that are available through the compiler's default include paths (gcc's own headers, those of glibc and other libraries under /usr/include, etc). gcc plugin headers are *not* available by default, one has to query the compiler about their path (see -print-file-name=plugin above) and explicitly add it to the compiler's include search path. second, regardless of whether plugin headers are available by default or not, we still couldn't use them during cross-compilation as the plugin headers we want are those of the target compiler (that will load the plugin eventually), not that of the host compiler (which merely compiles the plugin and in theory doesn't even have to be gcc or a plugin capable gcc). for these reasons the correct include directive is "..." and not <...>. if it helps to understand the situation better, consider that gcc plugins are to gcc as kernel modules are to vmlinux and all kernel headers are included via "..." as well, regardless of whether they're in the same directory or not. cheers, PaX Team