netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3] libbpf: fix compatibility for kernels without need

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]

Message-ID: <20191101072707.GE2794@krava>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 08:27:07 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, degeneloy@...il.com,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3] libbpf: fix compatibility for kernels
 without need_wakeup

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 01:39:12PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > yes. older vmlinux and newer installed libbpf.so
> > > or any version of libbpf.a that is statically linked into apps
> > > is something that libbpf code has to support.
> > > The server can be rebooted into older than libbpf kernel and
> > > into newer than libbpf kernel. libbpf has to recognize all these
> > > combinations and work appropriately.
> > > That's what backward and forward compatibility is.
> > > That's what makes libbpf so difficult to test, develop and code review.
> > > What that particular server has in /usr/include is irrelevant.
> >
> > sure, anyway we can't compile following:
> >
> >         tredaell@...ebaran ~ $ echo "#include <bpf/xsk.h>" | gcc -x c -
> >         In file included from <stdin>:1:
> >         /usr/include/bpf/xsk.h: In function ‘xsk_ring_prod__needs_wakeup’:
> >         /usr/include/bpf/xsk.h:82:21: error: ‘XDP_RING_NEED_WAKEUP’ undeclared (first use in this function)
> >            82 |  return *r->flags & XDP_RING_NEED_WAKEUP;
> >         ...
> >
> >         XDP_RING_NEED_WAKEUP is defined in kernel v5.4-rc1 (77cd0d7b3f257fd0e3096b4fdcff1a7d38e99e10).
> >         XSK_UNALIGNED_BUF_ADDR_MASK and XSK_UNALIGNED_BUF_OFFSET_SHIFT are defined in kernel v5.4-rc1 (c05cd3645814724bdeb32a2b4d953b12bdea5f8c).
> >
> > with:
> >   kernel-headers-5.3.6-300.fc31.x86_64
> >   libbpf-0.0.5-1.fc31.x86_64
> >
> > if you're saying this is not supported, I guess we could be postponing
> > libbpf rpm releases until we have the related fedora kernel released
> 
> why? github/libbpf is the source of truth for building packages
> and afaik it builds fine.

because we will get issues like above if there's no kernel
avilable that we could compile libbpf against

> 
> > or how about inluding uapi headers in libbpf-devel.. but that might
> > actualy cause more confusion
> 
> Libraries (libbpf or any other) should not install headers that
> typically go into /usr/include/
> if_xdp.h case is not unique.
> We'll surely add another #define, enum, etc to uapi/linux/bpf.h tomorrow.
> And we will not copy paste these constants and types into tools/lib/bpf/.
> In kernel tree libbpf development is using kernel tree headers.
> No problem there for libbpf developers.
> Packages are built out of github/libbpf that has a copy of uapi headers
> necessary to create packages.
> No problem there for package builders either.
> But libbpf package is not going to install those uapi headers.
> libbpf package installs only libbpf own headers (like libbpf.h)
> The users that want to build against the latest libbpf package need
> to install corresponding uapi headers package.
> I don't think such dependency is specified in rpm scripts.
> May be it is something to fix? Or may be not.

I'll check if we can add some kernel version/package dependency

> Some folks might not want to update all of /usr/include to bring libbpf-devel.
> Then it would be their responsibility to get fresh /usr/include headers.

jirka