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, 18 Aug 2020 18:31:51 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <>, bpf <>,
        Networking <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Kernel Team <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/9] Add support for type-based and enum
 value-based CO-RE relocations

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:21 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 03:39:12PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > This patch set adds libbpf support to two new classes of CO-RE relocations:
> >
> > LLVM patches adding these relocation in Clang:
> >   - __builtin_btf_type_id() ([0], [1], [2]);
> >   - __builtin_preserve_type_info(), __builtin_preserve_enum_value() ([3], [4]).
> I've applied patches 1-4, since they're somewhat indepedent of new features in 5+.
> What should be the process to land the rest?
> Land llvm first and add to bpf/README.rst that certain llvm commmits are necessary
> to build the tests?

Clang patches landed about two weeks ago, so they are already in Clang
nightly builds. libbpf CI should work fine as it uses clang-12 nightly

> But CI will start failing. We can wait for that to be fixed,
> but I wonder is there way to detect new clang __builtins automatically in
> selftests and skip them if clang is too old?

There is a way to detect built-ins availability (__has_builtin macro,
[0]) from C code. If we want to do it from Makefile, though, we'd need
to do feature detection similar to how we did reallocarray and
libbpf-elf-mmap detection I just removed in the other patch set :).
Then we'll also need to somehow blacklist tests. Maintaining that
would be a pain, honestly. So far selftests/bpf assumed the latest
Clang, though, so do you think we should change that, or you were
worried that patches hadn't landed yet?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists