netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/2] tools/bpftool: fix bpftool build with bintutils >= 2.8

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20171227190417.GA2361@castle>
Date:   Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:04:24 +0000
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:     Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@...com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/2] tools/bpftool: fix bpftool build with
 bintutils >= 2.8

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 06:32:05PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 06:50:01PM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> > Hi Roman,
> > 
> > 2017-12-22 16:11 UTC+0000 ~ Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > > Bpftool build is broken with binutils version 2.28 and later.
> > 
> > Could you check the binutils version? I believe it changed in 2.29
> > instead of 2.28. Could you update your commit log and subject
> > accordingly, please?

Yes, you're right. Thanks!

> > 
> > > The cause is commit 003ca0fd2286 ("Refactor disassembler selection")
> > > in the binutils repo, which changed the disassembler() function
> > > signature.
> > > 
> > > Fix this by adding a new "feature" to the tools/build/features
> > > infrastructure and make it responsible for decision which
> > > disassembler() function signature to use.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/bpf/Makefile                                | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  tools/bpf/bpf_jit_disasm.c                        |  7 ++++++
> > >  tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile                        | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  tools/bpf/bpftool/jit_disasm.c                    |  7 ++++++
> > >  tools/build/feature/Makefile                      |  4 ++++
> > >  tools/build/feature/test-disassembler-four-args.c | 15 ++++++++++++
> > >  6 files changed, 86 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/build/feature/test-disassembler-four-args.c
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/Makefile b/tools/bpf/Makefile
> > > index 07a6697466ef..c8ec0ae16bf0 100644
> > > --- a/tools/bpf/Makefile
> > > +++ b/tools/bpf/Makefile
> > > @@ -9,6 +9,35 @@ MAKE = make
> > >  CFLAGS += -Wall -O2
> > >  CFLAGS += -D__EXPORTED_HEADERS__ -I../../include/uapi -I../../include
> > >  
> > > +ifeq ($(srctree),)
> > > +srctree := $(patsubst %/,%,$(dir $(CURDIR)))
> > > +srctree := $(patsubst %/,%,$(dir $(srctree)))
> > > +endif
> > > +
> > > +FEATURE_USER = .bpf
> > > +FEATURE_TESTS = libbfd disassembler-four-args
> > > +FEATURE_DISPLAY = libbfd disassembler-four-args
> > 
> > Thanks for adding libbfd as I requested. However, you do not use it in
> > the Makefile to prevent compilation if the feature is not detected (see
> > "bpfdep" or "elfdep" in tools/lib/bpf/Makefile. Sorry, I should have
> > pointed it in my previous review.
> > 
> > But actually, I have another issue related to the libbfd feature: since
> > commit 280e7c48c3b8 ("perf tools: fix BFD detection on opensuse") it
> > requires libiberty so that libbfd is correctly detected, but libiberty
> > is not needed on all distros (at least Ubuntu can have libbfd without
> > libiberty). Typically, detection fails on my setup, although I do have
> > libbfd installed. So forcing libbfd feature here may eventually force
> > users to install libraries they do not need to compile bpftool, which is
> > not what we want.
> > 
> > I do not have a clean work around to suggest. Maybe have one
> > "libbfd-something" feature that tries to compile without libiberty, then
> > another one that tries with it, and compile the tools if at least one of
> > them succeeds. But it's probably for another patch series. In the
> > meantime, would you please simply remove libbfd detection here and
> > accept my apologies for suggesting to add it in the previous review?
> 
> I think since libbfd is already used by bpftool it's a good thing
> to add feature detection. Even if it's not perfect on some setups.

Agree, we can enhance it later.

> 
> Roman,
> I think you still need to do one more respin to address commit log nit?
> 

Sure, will send soon-ish.

Thanks!