netdev - Re: [PATCHv3 iproute2-next 1/5] configure: add check

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201104114022.GS2408@dhcp-12-153.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 2020 19:40:22 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <haliu@...hat.com>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        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>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 iproute2-next 1/5] configure: add check_libbpf() for
 later libbpf support

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:09:15PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > +usage()
> > +{
> > +       cat <<EOF
> > +Usage: $0 [OPTIONS]
> > +  -h | --help                  Show this usage info
> > +  --no-libbpf                  build the package without libbpf
> > +  --libbpf-dir=DIR             build the package with self defined libbpf dir
> > +EOF
> > +       exit $1
> > +}
> 
> This would be the only command line arg that configure takes; all other
> options are passed via the environment. I think we should be consistent
> here; and since converting the whole configure script is probably out of
> scope for this patch, why not just use the existing FORCE_LIBBPF
> variable?

Yes, converting the whole configure script should be split as another patch
work.
> 
> I.e., FORCE_LIBBPF=on will fail if not libbpf is present,
> FORCE_LIBBPF=off will disable libbpf entirely, and if the variable is
> unset, libbpf will be used if found?

I like this one, with only one variable. I will check how to re-organize the
script.

> 
> Alternatively, keep them as two separate variables (FORCE_LIBBPF and
> DISABLE_LIBBPF?). I don't have any strong preference as to which of
> those is best, but I think they'd both be more consistent with the
> existing configure script logic...

Please tell me if others have any other ideas.

Thanks
Hnagbin