netdev - Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] perf/bpftool: Allow to link libbpf dynamically

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: <20191204135405.3ffb9ad6@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:54:05 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 
        <toke@...hat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] perf/bpftool: Allow to link libbpf dynamically

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:16:13 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> I wonder what big advantage having bpftool in libbpf's Github repo
> brings, actually? The reason we need libbpf on github is to allow
> other projects like pahole to be able to use libbpf from submodule.
> There is no such need for bpftool.
> 
> I agree about preference to release them in sync, but that could be
> easily done by releasing based on corresponding commits in github's
> libbpf repo and kernel repo. bpftool doesn't have to physically live
> next to libbpf on Github, does it?

+1

> Calling github repo a "mirror" is incorrect. It's not a 1:1 copy of
> files. We have a completely separate Makefile for libbpf, and we have
> a bunch of stuff we had to re-implement to detach libbpf code from
> kernel's non-UAPI headers. Doing this for bpftool as well seems like
> just more maintenance. Keeping github's Makefile in sync with kernel's
> Makefile (for libbpf) is PITA, I'd rather avoid similar pains for
> bpftool without a really good reason.

Agreed. Having libbpf on GH is definitely useful today, but one can hope
a day will come when distroes will get up to speed on packaging libbpf,
and perhaps we can retire it? Maybe 2, 3 years from now? Putting
bpftool in the same boat is just more baggage.