netdev - Re: libbpf distro packaging

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

Date:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:11:44 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Julia Kartseva <hex@...com>
Cc:     "labbott@...hat.com" <labbott@...hat.com>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org" <debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: libbpf distro packaging

On 8/13/19 2:24 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 07:04:12PM +0000, Julia Kartseva wrote:
>> I would like to bring up libbpf publishing discussion started at [1].
>> The present state of things is that libbpf is built from kernel tree, e.g. [2]
>> For Debian and [3] for Fedora whereas the better way would be having a
>> package built from github mirror. The advantages of the latter:
>> - Consistent, ABI matching versioning across distros
>> - The mirror has integration tests
>> - No need in kernel tree to build a package
>> - Changes can be merged directly to github w/o waiting them to be merged
>> through bpf-next -> net-next -> main
>> There is a PR introducing a libbpf.spec which can be used as a starting point: [4]
>> Any comments regarding the spec itself can be posted there.
>> In the future it may be used as a source of truth.
>> Please consider switching libbpf packaging to the github mirror instead
>> of the kernel tree.
>> Thanks
>>
>> [1] https://lists.iovisor.org/g/iovisor-dev/message/1521
>> [2] https://packages.debian.org/sid/libbpf4.19
>> [3] http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/devel/rawhide/x86_64/l/libbpf-5.3.0-0.rc2.git0.1.fc31.x86_64.html
>> [4] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/pull/64
> 
> hi,
> Fedora has libbpf as kernel-tools subpackage, so I think
> we'd need to create new package and deprecate the current
> 
> but I like the ABI stability by using github .. how's actually
> the sync (in both directions) with kernel sources going on?

The upstream kernel's tools/lib/bpf/ is always source of truth. Meaning, changes need
to make it upstream first and they are later synced into the GH stand-alone repo.

Thanks,
Daniel