Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:38:31 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        andrii.nakryiko@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 4/5] iproute2: Allow compiling against libbpf

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:

> On 8/22/19 2:04 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
>>> On 8/22/19 12:43 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
>>>>> On 8/20/19 1:47 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>>>> This adds a configure check for libbpf and renames functions to allow
>>>>>> lib/bpf.c to be compiled with it present. This makes it possible to
>>>>>> port functionality piecemeal to use libbpf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     configure          | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>     include/bpf_util.h |  6 +++---
>>>>>>     ip/ipvrf.c         |  4 ++--
>>>>>>     lib/bpf.c          | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>>>     4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>>>>>> index 45fcffb6..5a89ee9f 100755
>>>>>> --- a/configure
>>>>>> +++ b/configure
>>>>>> @@ -238,6 +238,19 @@ check_elf()
>>>>>>         fi
>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>     
>>>>>> +check_libbpf()
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    if ${PKG_CONFIG} libbpf --exists; then
>>>>>> +	echo "HAVE_LIBBPF:=y" >>$CONFIG
>>>>>> +	echo "yes"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	echo 'CFLAGS += -DHAVE_LIBBPF' `${PKG_CONFIG} libbpf --cflags` >> $CONFIG
>>>>>> +	echo 'LDLIBS += ' `${PKG_CONFIG} libbpf --libs` >>$CONFIG
>>>>>> +    else
>>>>>> +	echo "no"
>>>>>> +    fi
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>     check_selinux()
>>>>>
>>>>> More of an implementation detail at this point in time, but want to
>>>>> make sure this doesn't get missed along the way: as discussed at
>>>>> bpfconf [0] best for iproute2 to handle libbpf support would be the
>>>>> same way of integration as pahole does, that is, to integrate it via
>>>>> submodule [1] to allow kernel and libbpf features to be in sync with
>>>>> iproute2 releases and therefore easily consume extensions we're adding
>>>>> to libbpf to aide iproute2 integration.
>>>>
>>>> I can sorta see the point wrt keeping in sync with kernel features. But
>>>> how will this work with distros that package libbpf as a regular
>>>> library? Have you guys given up on regular library symbol versioning for
>>>> libbpf?
>>>
>>> Not at all, and I hope you know that. ;-)
>> 
>> Good! Didn't really expect you had, just checking ;)
>> 
>>> The reason I added lib/bpf.c integration into iproute2 directly back
>>> then was exactly such that users can start consuming BPF for tc and
>>> XDP via iproute2 /everywhere/ with only a simple libelf dependency
>>> which is also available on all distros since pretty much forever. If
>>> it was an external library, we could have waited till hell freezes
>>> over and initial distro adoption would have pretty much taken forever:
>>> to pick one random example here wrt the pace of some downstream
>>> distros [0]. The main rationale is pretty much the same as with added
>>> kernel features that land complementary iproute2 patches for that
>>> kernel release and as libbpf is developed alongside it is reasonable
>>> to guarantee user expectations that iproute2 released for kernel
>>> version x can make use of BPF features added to kernel x with same
>>> loader support from x.
>> 
>> Well, for iproute2 I would expect this to be solved by version
>> dependencies. I.e. iproute2 version X would depend on libbpf version Y+
>> (like, I dunno, the version of libbpf included in the same kernel source
>> tree as the kernel version iproute2 is targeting? :)).
>
> This sounds nice in theory, but from what I've seen major (!) distros
> already seem to have a hard time releasing kernel x along with iproute2
> package x, concrete example was that distro kernel was on 4.13 and its
> official iproute2 package on 4.9,

If the iproute2 package is not being updated at all I don't really see
how it would make any difference whether libbpf is vendored or not? :)

> adding yet another variable that needs to be in sync with kernel is
> simply impractical especially for a _core_ package like iproute2 that
> should have as little dependencies as possible. I also don't want to
> make a bet on whether libbpf will be available on every distro that
> also ships iproute2. Hence approach that pahole (and also bcc by the
> way) takes is most reasonable to have the best user experience.

Most users are going to get iproute2 from their distro packages anyway,
so if distros are incompetent at packaging, my bet is that you're going
to run into issues one way or another.

But OK, if you think it is easier to work around bad distros by
vendoring, you guys are the maintainers, so that's up to you. But can we
at least put in the version dependency and let the build system pick up
a system libbpf if it exists and is compatible? That way distros that
*are* competent can still link it dynamically...

-Toke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists