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:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:26:57 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Networking <>, bpf <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: Fix include of bpf_helpers.h when libbpf is installed on system

Andrii Nakryiko <> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:07 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 8:43 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> wrote:
>> >
>> > The change to use angled includes for bpf_helper_defs.h breaks compilation
>> > against libbpf when it is installed in the include path, since the file is
>> > installed in the bpf/ subdirectory of $INCLUDE_PATH. Fix this by adding the
>> > bpf/ prefix to the #include directive.
>> >
>> > Fixes: 6910d7d3867a ("selftests/bpf: Ensure bpf_helper_defs.h are taken from selftests dir")
>> > Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>
>> > ---
>> > Not actually sure this fix works for all the cases you originally tried to
>> This does break selftests/bpf. Have you tried building selftests, does
>> it work for you? We need to fix selftests simultaneously with this
>> change.
>> > fix with the referred commit; please check. Also, could we please stop breaking
>> > libbpf builds? :)
>> Which libbpf build is failing right now? Both github and in-kernel
>> libbpf builds are fine. You must be referring to something else. What
>> exactly?
> I think it's better to just ensure that when compiling BPF programs,
> they have -I/usr/include/bpf specified, so that all BPF-side headers
> can be simply included as #include <bpf_helpers.h>, #include
> <bpf_tracing.h>, etc

And break all programs that don't have that already? Just to make the
kernel build env slightly more convenient? Hardly friendly to the
library users, is it? :)

As far as selftests are concerned, I finally managed to get an LLVM
version that will build them all; so I'll test that tomorrow and send a
v2 that doesn't break them...


Powered by blists - more mailing lists