On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:29:01 +0100 Simon K?gstr?m <simon.kagstrom at netinsight.net> wrote:
> On 2015-11-04 11:35, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-08-20 08:51, Simon Kagstrom: > >> -ifeq ($(shell test -f /proc/version_signature && lsb_release -si > >> 2>/dev/null),Ubuntu) > >> +ifeq ($(shell lsb_release -si 2>/dev/null),Ubuntu) > >> MODULE_CFLAGS += -DUBUNTU_RELEASE_CODE=$(shell lsb_release -sr | tr -d .) > >> -UBUNTU_KERNEL_CODE := $(shell cut -d' ' -f2 /proc/version_signature | \ > >> - cut -d'~' -f1 | cut -d- -f1,2 | tr .- $(comma)) > >> +UBUNTU_KERNEL_CODE := $(shell echo `grep UTS_RELEASE > >> $(RTE_KERNELDIR)/include/generated/utsrelease.h \ > >> + | cut -d '"' -f2 | cut -d- -f1,2 | tr .- $(comma)`,1) > >> MODULE_CFLAGS += > >> -D"UBUNTU_KERNEL_CODE=UBUNTU_KERNEL_VERSION($(UBUNTU_KERNEL_CODE))" > >> endif > > > > Yes we must check RTE_KERNELDIR instead of the running kernel. > > But it is still checking lsb_release for the running system. > > It seems not consistent. > > I don't think so: the case the patch addresses is where the running > kernel and rootfs doesn't match, like in a chroot environment. > > So lsb_release will come from the chroot, as it should, but without the > patch, the kernel version will not come from the installed kernel > headers in the chroot, but the running kernel - which might even not be > Ubuntu. > > // Simon > The danger here is starting to assume the build machine is the same as the running image. Using /proc to determine runtime environment is wrong.
