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

[Toke HÃiland-JÃrgensen]

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:39:59AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:58 AM Toke HÃiland-JÃrgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > > 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?
>> >
>> > Yup, making bpftool explicitly the "libbpf command line interface" makes
>> > sense and would help clarify the relationship between the two. As Jiri
>> > said, we are already moving in that direction packaging-wise...
>> 
>> Awesome. Let's figure out the logistics.
>> Should we do:
>> git mv tools/bpf/bpftool/ tools/lib/bpf/
>> and appropriate adjustment to Makefiles ?
>> or keep it where it is and only add to
>> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/blob/master/scripts/sync-kernel.sh ?
>
> I'd be in preference of the latter aka keeping where it is.

I don't have any strong preference either way. It would make sense to
move it to make clear the interdependency (and that bpftool is really
the "libbpf cli interface"); but it could also just be kept separate and
just document this in the existing bpftool dir.

The github repository may need some surgery, though. So maybe let the
changes in the kernel tree depend on what's easiest for that? IDK?

-Toke