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  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:   Mon, 02 Dec 2019 19:08:52 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        Jiri Olsa <>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,
        lkml <>,
        Networking <>, bpf <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Namhyung Kim <>,
        Alexander Shishkin <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Michael Petlan <>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <>,
        Song Liu <>, Yonghong Song <>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] perf/bpftool: Allow to link libbpf dynamically

Andrii Nakryiko <> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 1:49 AM Jiri Olsa <> wrote:
>> hi,
>> adding support to link bpftool with libbpf dynamically,
>> and config change for perf.
>> It's now possible to use:
>>   $ make -C tools/bpf/bpftool/ LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=1
> I wonder what's the motivation behind these changes, though? Why is
> linking bpftool dynamically with libbpf is necessary and important?
> They are both developed tightly within kernel repo, so I fail to see
> what are the huge advantages one can get from linking them
> dynamically.

Well, all the regular reasons for using dynamic linking (memory usage,
binary size, etc). But in particular, the ability to update the libbpf
package if there's a serious bug, and have that be picked up by all
utilities making use of it. No reason why bpftool should be special in
that respect.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists