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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20191204233948.opvlopjkxe5o66lr@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:39:49 -0800 From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...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, Dec 04, 2019 at 01:54:05PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > 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. Distros should be packaging libbpf and bpftool from single repo on github. Kernel tree is for packaging kernel.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists