On 02.11.21 16:50, Christian Storm wrote: > Hi Jan, > >>> On first build, libtool produces a proper statically linked >>> bg_setenv tool which by argv[0] decides whether to printenv >>> or setenv. >>> >>> On subsequent builds, e.g., while incrementally developing, >>> libtool *dynamically* links bg_setenv against libebgenv and >>> applies "magic" [1,2] to compensate for library paths. >>> This breaks the bg_setenv argv[0] logic. >>> >>> So, state explicitly that bg_setenv is to be linked statically. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Linking-executables.html#Linking-executables >>> [2] https://autotools.io/libtool/wrappers.html >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christian Storm <christian.st...@siemens.com> >>> --- >>> Makefile.am | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am >>> index 3545ae2..2a5f8f8 100644 >>> --- a/Makefile.am >>> +++ b/Makefile.am >>> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ bg_setenv_SOURCES = \ >>> tools/bg_setenv.c >>> >>> bg_setenv_CFLAGS = \ >>> - $(AM_CFLAGS) >>> + $(AM_CFLAGS) -static >>> >>> bg_setenv_LDADD = \ >>> -lebgenv \ >>> >> >> OK, that means we are now shipping a bg_setenv with 0.9 that dynamically >> links against libebgenv. In 0.8, it was statically linked, right? Do you >> think this qualifies for a 0.9.1? > > On first build, everything is fine. So, if you package EBG (one time > build and package) you'll get a statically linked bg_setenv and it's
Nope, this does not seem to be generally true. I've just done a clean out-of-tree build, and the installed bg_setenv was linked dynamically against libebgenv. > fine. If you start developing and doing iterative builds, the then 2nd > and following builds is where libtool interferes. > So I do not see an urgent need to rush out a 0.9.1, yet. > > I still have to investigate Michael's Nix issue to sort it out thoroughly. > On Bullseye and Arch the above patch fixes the issue as he has confirmed. I'm an SUSE. Probably the binutils version again. Let me double-check bullseye and test buster. > > So, we can put this to -next to meanwhile fix iterative development builds > and wait for my Nix findings. > > What do you think? > I'm still struggling with understanding the practical impact. We install everything that is needed, but if the user does not re-deploy the new lib, bg_setenv might be broken, at least in some build environments. If that is an issue... don't know yet. Jan -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EFI Boot Guard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to efibootguard-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/efibootguard-dev/3ca573c9-8fbb-712b-a543-1c4af678f9d2%40siemens.com.
