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 11:23:59 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Julia Kartseva <hex@...com>,
        "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 Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:26 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> 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?

Sync is always in one direction, from kernel sources into Github repo.
Right now it's triggered by a human (usually me), but we are using a
script that automates entire process (see
https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/blob/master/scripts/sync-kernel.sh).
It cherry-pick relevant commits from kernel, transforms them to match
Github's file layout and re-applies those changes to Github repo.

There is never a sync from Github back to kernel, but Github repo
contains some extra stuff that's not in kernel. E.g., the script I
mentioned, plus Github's Makefile is different, because it can't rely
on kernel's kbuild setup.

>
> thanks,
> jirka