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:   Mon, 2 Dec 2019 15:54:34 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>,
        Jiri Olsa <>,
        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

Em Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 10:42:53AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 10:09 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> wrote:
> > Andrii Nakryiko <> writes:
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 1:49 AM Jiri Olsa <> wrote:
> > >> 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).

> bpftool is 327KB with statically linked libbpf. Hardly a huge problem
> for either binary size or memory usage. CPU instruction cache usage is
> also hardly a concern for bpftool specifically.

> > 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.

> I agree, and that works only for utilities linking with libbpf
> dynamically. For tools that build statically, you'd have to update
> tools anyways. And if you can update libbpf, you can as well update
> bpftool at the same time, so I don't think linking bpftool statically
> with libbpf causes any new problems.

> > No reason why bpftool should be special in that respect.

> But I think bpftool is special and we actually want it to be special
> and tightly coupled to libbpf with sometimes very intimate knowledge
> of libbpf and access to "hidden" APIs. That allows us to experiment
> with new stuff that requires use of bpftool (e.g., code generation for
> BPF programs), without having to expose and seal public APIs. And I
> don't think it's a problem from the point of code maintenance, because
> both live in the same repository and are updated "atomically" when new
> features are added or changed.

> Beyond superficial binary size worries, I don't see any good reason
> why we should add more complexity and variables to libbpf and bpftool
> build processes just to have a "nice to have" option of linking
> bpftool dynamically with libbpf.


And I would also agree 8-)

- Arnaldo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists