[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190927124820.GB22184@pc-66.home>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:48:20 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] libbpf: add macro __BUILD_STATIC_LIBBPF__ to guard
.symver
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:02:04PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> bcc uses libbpf repo as a submodule. It brings in libbpf source
> code and builds everything together to produce shared libraries.
> With latest libbpf, I got the following errors:
> /bin/ld: libbcc_bpf.so.0.10.0: version node not found for symbol xsk_umem__create@...BPF_0.0.2
> /bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: Bad value
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[2]: *** [src/cc/libbcc_bpf.so.0.10.0] Error 1
>
> In xsk.c, we have
> asm(".symver xsk_umem__create_v0_0_2, xsk_umem__create@...BPF_0.0.2");
> asm(".symver xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4, xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4");
> The linker thinks the built is for LIBBPF but cannot find proper version
> LIBBPF_0.0.2/4, so emit errors.
>
> I also confirmed that using libbpf.a to produce a shared library also
> has issues:
> -bash-4.4$ cat t.c
> extern void *xsk_umem__create;
> void * test() { return xsk_umem__create; }
> -bash-4.4$ gcc -c t.c
> -bash-4.4$ gcc -shared t.o libbpf.a -o t.so
> /bin/ld: t.so: version node not found for symbol xsk_umem__create@...BPF_0.0.2
> /bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: Bad value
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> -bash-4.4$
>
> To fix the problem, I simply added a macro __BUILD_STATIC_LIBBPF__
> which will prevent issuing .symver assembly codes when enabled.
> The .symver assembly codes are still issued by default.
> This will at least give other libbpf users to build libbpf
> without these versioned symbols.
>
> I did not touch Makefile to actually use this macro to build
> static library as I want to check whether this is desirable or not.
Isn't there any better way on how we can detect this? Asking users to
pass this macro to the build seems a suboptimal user experience. How
are other libraries solving this given this seems really not specific
to libbpf?
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> index 24fa313524fb..76c12c4c5c70 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> @@ -261,8 +261,11 @@ int xsk_umem__create_v0_0_2(struct xsk_umem **umem_ptr, void *umem_area,
> return xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4(umem_ptr, umem_area, size, fill, comp,
> &config);
> }
> +
> +#ifndef __BUILD_STATIC_LIBBPF__
> asm(".symver xsk_umem__create_v0_0_2, xsk_umem__create@...BPF_0.0.2");
> asm(".symver xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4, xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4");
> +#endif
>
> static int xsk_load_xdp_prog(struct xsk_socket *xsk)
> {
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists