netdev - Re: Bpftool mirror now available

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: <ac3f95ed-bead-e8ea-b477-edcbd809452c@isovalent.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 12:35:09 +0000
From:   Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Dave Thaler <dthaler@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Bpftool mirror now available

2022-01-19 22:25 UTC-0800 ~ Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 6:47 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com> wrote:

[...]

>> 2. Because it is easier to compile and ship, this mirror should
>> hopefully simplify bpftool packaging for distributions.
> 
> Right, I hope disto packagers will be quick to adopt the new mirror
> repo for packaging bpftool. Let's figure out bpftool versioning schema
> as a next step. Given bpftool heavily relies on libbpf and isn't
> really coupled to kernel versions, it makes sense for bpftool to
> reflect libbpf version rather than kernel's. WDYT?

Personally, I don't mind finding another scheme, as long as we keep it
consistent between the reference sources in the kernel repo and the mirror.

I also agree that it would make sense to align it to libbpf, but that
would mean going backward on the numbers (current version is 5.16.0,
libbpf's is 0.7.0) and this will mess up with every script trying to
compare versions. We could maybe add a prefix to indicate that the
scheme has changed ('l_0.7.0), but similarly, it would break a good
number of tools that expect semantic versioning, I don't think this is
any better.

The other alternative I see would be to pick a different major version
number and arbitrarily declare that bpftool's version is aligned on
libbpf's, but with a difference of 6 for the version number. So we would
start at 6.7.0 and reach 7.0.0 when libbpf 1.0.0 is released. This is
not ideal, but we would keep some consistency, and we can always add the
version of libbpf used for the build to "bpftool version"'s output. How
would you feel about it? Did you have something else in mind?

Quentin