linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools/build: Add a feature test for libopenssl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aTE9uh90UarabZjL@google.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 23:52:26 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools/build: Add a feature test for libopenssl

Hi Ian,

On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 04:34:56PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 3:29 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > It's used by bpftool and the kernel build.  Let's add a feature test so
> > that perf can decide what to do based on the availability.
> 
> It seems strange to add a feature test that bpftool is missing and
> then use it only in the perf build. The signing of bpf programs isn't
> something I think we need for skeleton support in perf. I like the
> feature test, could we add it and use it in bpftool? The only two
> functions using openssl appear to be:
> 
>   __u32 register_session_key(const char *key_der_path)
>   int bpftool_prog_sign(struct bpf_load_and_run_opts *opts)
> 
> so we can do the whole feature test then #ifdef HAVE_FEATURE... stub
> static inline versions of the functions game?
> 
> Perhaps we only need the bootstrap version of bpftool in perf and we
> can just avoid dependencies that way. Looking at bpftool's build I see
> that sign.o/c with those functions in is part of the bootstrap version
> of bpftool :-(

BPF folks said it's a required library and they don't want to build
without it.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/e44f70bf-8f50-4a4b-97b8-eaf988aabced@kernel.org/

Thanks,
Namhyung