Re: [RFC bpf-next 4/5] iproute2: Allow compiling against libbpf

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes:

> On 8/22/19 12:43 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes:
>>> On 8/20/19 1:47 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> This adds a configure check for libbpf and renames functions to allow
>>>> lib/bpf.c to be compiled with it present. This makes it possible to
>>>> port functionality piecemeal to use libbpf.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    configure          | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>    include/bpf_util.h |  6 +++---
>>>>    ip/ipvrf.c         |  4 ++--
>>>>    lib/bpf.c          | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>    4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>>>> index 45fcffb6..5a89ee9f 100755
>>>> --- a/configure
>>>> +++ b/configure
>>>> @@ -238,6 +238,19 @@ check_elf()
>>>>        fi
>>>>    }
>>>>    
>>>> +check_libbpf()
>>>> +{
>>>> +    if ${PKG_CONFIG} libbpf --exists; then
>>>> +	echo "HAVE_LIBBPF:=y" >>$CONFIG
>>>> +	echo "yes"
>>>> +
>>>> +	echo 'CFLAGS += -DHAVE_LIBBPF' `${PKG_CONFIG} libbpf --cflags` >> $CONFIG
>>>> +	echo 'LDLIBS += ' `${PKG_CONFIG} libbpf --libs` >>$CONFIG
>>>> +    else
>>>> +	echo "no"
>>>> +    fi
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    check_selinux()
>>>
>>> More of an implementation detail at this point in time, but want to
>>> make sure this doesn't get missed along the way: as discussed at
>>> bpfconf [0] best for iproute2 to handle libbpf support would be the
>>> same way of integration as pahole does, that is, to integrate it via
>>> submodule [1] to allow kernel and libbpf features to be in sync with
>>> iproute2 releases and therefore easily consume extensions we're adding
>>> to libbpf to aide iproute2 integration.
>> 
>> I can sorta see the point wrt keeping in sync with kernel features. But
>> how will this work with distros that package libbpf as a regular
>> library? Have you guys given up on regular library symbol versioning for
>> libbpf?
>
> Not at all, and I hope you know that. ;-)

Good! Didn't really expect you had, just checking ;)

> The reason I added lib/bpf.c integration into iproute2 directly back
> then was exactly such that users can start consuming BPF for tc and
> XDP via iproute2 /everywhere/ with only a simple libelf dependency
> which is also available on all distros since pretty much forever. If
> it was an external library, we could have waited till hell freezes
> over and initial distro adoption would have pretty much taken forever:
> to pick one random example here wrt the pace of some downstream
> distros [0]. The main rationale is pretty much the same as with added
> kernel features that land complementary iproute2 patches for that
> kernel release and as libbpf is developed alongside it is reasonable
> to guarantee user expectations that iproute2 released for kernel
> version x can make use of BPF features added to kernel x with same
> loader support from x.

Well, for iproute2 I would expect this to be solved by version
dependencies. I.e. iproute2 version X would depend on libbpf version Y+
(like, I dunno, the version of libbpf included in the same kernel source
tree as the kernel version iproute2 is targeting? :)).

If we vendor libbpf into every project using it, we'll end up with
dozens of different versions statically linked into each binary, kinda
defeating the purpose of having it as a shared library in the first
place...

-Toke