[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzY6iqkJZOnPNwVp3Q+UYu=XA7CKo83aD60RvcAapWb0eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:30:38 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
Hangbin Liu <haliu@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
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>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 iproute2-next 0/5] iproute2: add libbpf support
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 3:25 PM Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:04:16 -0800
> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 12:58 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 12:44 AM Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:19:00 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > > I'll just quote myself here for your convenience.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I missed your original email for some reason.
> > > >
> > > > > Submodule is a way that I know of to make this better for end users.
> > > > > If there are other ways to pull this off with shared library use, I'm
> > > > > all for it, it will save the security angle that distros are arguing
> > > > > for. E.g., if distributions will always have the latest libbpf
> > > > > available almost as soon as it's cut upstream *and* new iproute2
> > > > > versions enforce the latest libbpf when they are packaged/released,
> > > > > then this might work equivalently for end users. If Linux distros
> > > > > would be willing to do this faithfully and promptly, I have no
> > > > > objections whatsoever. Because all that matters is BPF end user
> > > > > experience, as Daniel explained above.
> > > >
> > > > That's basically what we already do, for both Fedora and RHEL.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, it follows the distro release cycle, i.e. no version
> > > > upgrades - or very limited ones - during lifetime of a particular
> > > > release. But that would not be different if libbpf was bundled in
> > > > individual projects.
> > >
> > > Alright. Hopefully this would be sufficient in practice.
> >
> > I think bumping the minimal version of libbpf with every iproute2 release
> > is necessary as well.
> > Today iproute2-next should require 0.2.0. The cycle after it should be 0.3.0
> > and so on.
> > This way at least some correlation between iproute2 and libbpf will be
> > established.
> > Otherwise it's a mess of versions and functionality from user point of view.
>
> As long as iproute2 6.0 and libbpf 0.11.0 continues to work on older kernel
> (like oldest living LTS 4.19 in 2023?); then it is fine.
>
> Just don't want libbpf to cause visible breakage for users.
libbpf CI validates a bunch of selftests on 4.9 kernel, see [0]. It
should work on even older ones. Not all BPF programs would load and be
verified successfully, but libbpf itself should work regardless.
[0] https://travis-ci.com/github/libbpf/libbpf/jobs/429362146
Powered by blists - more mailing lists