Date:   Tue, 04 Feb 2020 20:19:23 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/5] Convert iproute2 to use libbpf (WIP)

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:25 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:53 PM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2/3/20 8:41 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 5:46 PM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 2/3/20 5:56 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> >> >>> Great! Just to disambiguate and make sure we are in agreement, my hope
>> >> >>> here is that iproute2 can completely delegate to libbpf all the ELF
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> iproute2 needs to compile and continue working as is when libbpf is not
>> >> >> available. e.g., add check in configure to define HAVE_LIBBPF and move
>> >> >> the existing code and move under else branch.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wouldn't it be better to statically compile against libbpf in this
>> >> > case and get rid a lot of BPF-related code and simplify the rest of
>> >> > it? This can be easily done by using libbpf through submodule, the
>> >> > same way as BCC and pahole do it.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> iproute2 compiles today and runs on older distributions and older
>> >> distributions with newer kernels. That needs to hold true after the move
>> >> to libbpf.
>> >
>> > And by statically compiling against libbpf, checked out as a
>> > submodule, that will still hold true, wouldn't it? Or there is some
>> > complications I'm missing? Libbpf is designed to handle old kernels
>> > with no problems.
>>
>> My plan was to use the same configure test I'm using for xdp-tools
>> (where I in turn copied the structure of the configure script from
>> iproute2):
>>
>> https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tools/blob/master/configure#L59
>>
>> This will look for a system libbpf install and compile against it if it
>> is compatible, and otherwise fall back to a statically linking against a
>> git submodule.
>
> How will this work when build host has libbpf installed, but target
> host doesn't? You'll get dynamic linker error when trying to run that
> tool.

That's called dependency tracking; distros have various ways of going
about that :)

But yeah, if you're going to do you own cross-compilation, you'd
probably want to just force using the static library.

> If the goal is to have a reliable tool working everywhere, and you
> already support having libbpf as a submodule, why not always use
> submodule's libbpf? What's the concern? Libbpf is a small library, I
> don't think a binary size argument is enough reason to not do this. On
> the other hand, by using libbpf from submodule, your tool is built
> *and tested* with a well-known libbpf version that tool-producer
> controls.

I thought we already had this discussion? :)

libbpf is a library like any other. Distros that package the library
want the tools that use it to be dynamically linked against it so
library upgrades (especially of the CVE-fixing kind) get picked up by
all users. Other distros have memory and space constraints (iproute2 is
shipped on OpenWrt, for instance, which is *extremely*
space-constrained). And yeah, other deployments don't care and will just
statically compile in the vendored version. So we'll need to support all
of those use cases.

-Toke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists