On 04/04/2019 03.53, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 23:27, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:49:48PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote: >>> diff --git a/configure b/configure >>> index 1c563a7027..8632267049 100755 >>> --- a/configure >>> +++ b/configure >>> @@ -2389,7 +2389,6 @@ if test "$seccomp" != "no" ; then >>> libseccomp_minver="2.3.0" >>> ;; >>> *) >>> - libseccomp_minver="" >>> ;; >>> esac >> >> This makes sense to me. From a QEMU source POV we are able to build with >> libseccomp >= 2.2.0, which our default libseccomp_minver= env expresses >> a few lines earlier. >> >> If libseccomp isn't supported on a platform, then I think we should just >> assume that libseccomp won't be present in the OS install we are building >> against. I don't think QEMU needs to second-guess whether or not it is >> supported on the given architecture. > > If we want to do this then we should handle all the archs which > don't need to special case the seccomp version identically, ie > remove the x86/mips case which with this patch would be the > same as the default case. > >> In fact I'd go as far as to say we >> could probably just remove all this per-arch checking and just have a >> generic >= 2.2.0 check, and just rely on fact libseccomp won't exist >> on a s390/ppc/etc host if the distro had version < 2.3.0 > > The arm case at least is present because libseccomp 2.2.0 was > being built but didn't actually work for us. See commit ae6e8ef11e6cb43ec83.
Looking at https://repology.org/project/libseccomp/versions it seems like all major distro versions that we want to support feature at least version 2.3.0 ... so I think we can simplify the check here for all architectures and only test for a version >= 2.3.0. Thomas
