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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 23:09:44 +0100 From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/10] tools: Use consistent libbpf include paths everywhere Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 03:12:48PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> The recent commit 6910d7d3867a ("selftests/bpf: Ensure bpf_helper_defs.h are >> taken from selftests dir") broke compilation against libbpf if it is installed >> on the system, and $INCLUDEDIR/bpf is not in the include path. >> >> Since having the bpf/ subdir of $INCLUDEDIR in the include path has never been a >> requirement for building against libbpf before, this needs to be fixed. One >> option is to just revert the offending commit and figure out a different way to >> achieve what it aims for. However, this series takes a different approach: >> Changing all in-tree users of libbpf to consistently use a bpf/ prefix in >> #include directives for header files from libbpf. > > I don't think such approach will work in all cases. > Consider the user installing libbpf headers into /home/somebody/include/bpf/, > passing that path to -I and trying to build bpf progs > that do #include "bpf_helpers.h"... > In the current shape of libbpf everything will compile fine, > but after patch 8 of this series the compiler will not find bpf/bpf_helper_defs.h. > So I think we have no choice, but to revert that part of Andrii's patch. > Note that doing #include "" for additional library headers is a common practice. > There was nothing wrong about #include "bpf_helper_defs.h" in bpf_helpers.h. OK, I'll take another look at that bit and see if I can get it to work with #include "bpf_helper_defs.h" and still function with the read-only tree (and avoid stale headers). -Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists