Re: [PATCH] bpf: Hoise pahole version checks into Kconfig

[Nathan Chancellor]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:19:01AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:06 AM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > After commit da5fb18225b4 ("bpf: Support pre-2.25-binutils objcopy for
> > vmlinux BTF"), having CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF enabled but lacking a valid
> > copy of pahole results in a kernel that will fully compile but fail to
> > link. The user then has to either install pahole or disable
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF and rebuild the kernel but only after their build
> > has failed, which could have been a significant amount of time depending
> > on the hardware.
> >
> > Avoid a poor user experience and require pahole to be installed with an
> > appropriate version to select and use CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF, which is
> > standard for options that require a specific tools version.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if this is the right direction.
> 
> 
> I used to believe moving any tool test to the Kconfig
> was the right thing to do.
> 
> For example, I tried to move the libelf test to Kconfig,
> and make STACK_VALIDATION depend on it.
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/1531186516-15764-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> It was rejected.
> 
> 
> In my understanding, it is good to test target toolchains
> in Kconfig (e.g. cc-option, ld-option, etc).
> 
> As for host tools, in contrast, it is better to _intentionally_
> break the build in order to let users know that something needed is missing.
> Then, they will install necessary tools or libraries.
> It is just a one-time setup, in most cases,
> just running 'apt install' or 'dnf install'.
> 
> 
> 
> Recently, a similar thing happened to GCC_PLUGINS
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/20201203125700.161354-1-masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx/#23855673
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following this pattern, if a new pahole is not installed,
> it might be better to break the build instead of hiding
> the CONFIG option.
> 
> In my case, it is just a matter of 'apt install pahole'.
> On some distributions, the bundled pahole is not new enough,
> and people may end up with building pahole from the source code.

This is fair enough. However, I think that parts of this patch could
still be salvaged into something that fits this by making it so that if
pahole is not installed (CONFIG_PAHOLE_VERSION=0) or too old, the build
errors at the beginning, rather at the end. I am not sure where the best
place to put that check would be though.

Cheers,
Nathan