Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] perf/bpftool: Allow to link libbpf dynamically

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:15 PM Toke HÃiland-JÃrgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Ah, that is my mistake: I was getting dynamic libbpf symbols with this
> approach, but that was because I had the version of libbpf.so in my
> $LIBDIR that had the patch to expose the netlink APIs as versioned
> symbols; so it was just pulling in everything from the shared library.
>
> So what I was going for was exactly what you described above; but it
> seems that doesn't actually work. Too bad, and sorry for wasting your
> time on this :/

bpftool is currently tightly coupled with libbpf and very likely
in the future the dependency will be even tighter.
In that sense bpftool is an extension of libbpf and libbpf is an extension
of bpftool.
Andrii is working on set of patches to generate user space .c code
from bpf program.
bpftool will be generating the code that is specific for the version
bpftool and for
the version of libbpf. There will be compatibility layers as usual.
But in general the situation where a bug in libbpf is so criticial
that bpftool needs to repackaged is imo less likely than a bug in
bpftool that will require re-packaging of libbpf.
bpftool is quite special. It's not a typical user of libbpf.
The other way around is more correct. libbpf is a user of the code
that bpftool generates and both depend on each other.
perf on the other side is what typical user space app that uses
libbpf will look like.
I think keeping bpftool in the kernel while packaging libbpf
out of github was an oversight.
I think we need to mirror bpftool into github/libbpf as well
and make sure they stay together. The version of libbpf == version of bpftool.
Both should come from the same package and so on.
May be they can be two different packages but
upgrading one should trigger upgrade of another and vice versa.
I think one package would be easier though.
Thoughts?