* [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-13 21:30 Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2022-06-14 8:26 ` Shahab Vahedi 2022-06-15 10:57 ` Shahab Vahedi 0 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-13 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 fails: -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- $ make . . . CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct bpf_perf_link' perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); . . . skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in 'struct perf_event' return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); . . . 10 errors generated. make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained from the host machine. See [1] for further details. This commit adds a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [2]. Hopefully, those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> --- .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 114 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 114 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8c9c6d84b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" + +Building bpftool on Debian bullseye fails [1]. This patch +reverts the offending commit [2]. + +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u + +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f + +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 +--- a/src/main.h ++++ b/src/main.h +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { + + struct obj_refs { + int ref_cnt; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + struct obj_ref *refs; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; + }; + + struct btf; +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 +--- a/src/pids.c ++++ b/src/pids.c +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) + ref->pid = e->pid; + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); + refs->ref_cnt = 1; +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; + + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); + if (err) +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); +- + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); +- + printf("%s", prefix); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) + } + } + +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) +-{ +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; +- struct perf_event *event; +- +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); +-} +- + SEC("iter/task_file") + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + { +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + if (file->f_op != fops) + return 0; + +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); + e.pid = task->tgid; + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); +- +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; +- +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); +- } +- } +- + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), + task->group_leader->comm); + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ + struct pid_iter_entry { + __u32 id; + int pid; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + char comm[16]; + }; + -- 2.30.2 _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-13 21:30 [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-14 8:26 ` Shahab Vahedi 2022-06-15 10:57 ` Shahab Vahedi 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-14 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 fails: -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- $ make . . . CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct bpf_perf_link' perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); . . . skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in 'struct perf_event' return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); . . . 10 errors generated. make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained from the host machine. See [1] for further details. This commit adds a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [2]. Hopefully, those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. Changelog: v1: Initial submission [3] v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ [3] https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644819.html Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> --- .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 227 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 227 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..cb9ebdec41 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch @@ -0,0 +1,227 @@ +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" + +Building bpftool on Debian bullseye fails [1]. This patch +reverts the offending commit [2]. + +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u + +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f + +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 +--- a/src/main.h ++++ b/src/main.h +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { + + struct obj_refs { + int ref_cnt; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + struct obj_ref *refs; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; + }; + + struct btf; +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 +--- a/src/pids.c ++++ b/src/pids.c +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) + ref->pid = e->pid; + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); + refs->ref_cnt = 1; +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; + + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); + if (err) +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); +- + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); +- + printf("%s", prefix); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) + } + } + +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) +-{ +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; +- struct perf_event *event; +- +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); +-} +- + SEC("iter/task_file") + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + { +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + if (file->f_op != fops) + return 0; + +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); + e.pid = task->tgid; + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); +- +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; +- +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); +- } +- } +- + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), + task->group_leader->comm); + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ + struct pid_iter_entry { + __u32 id; + int pid; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + char comm[16]; + }; +--- + src/main.h | 2 -- + src/pids.c | 8 -------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 +--- a/src/main.h ++++ b/src/main.h +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { + + struct obj_refs { + int ref_cnt; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + struct obj_ref *refs; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; + }; + + struct btf; +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 +--- a/src/pids.c ++++ b/src/pids.c +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) + ref->pid = e->pid; + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); + refs->ref_cnt = 1; +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; + + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); + if (err) +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); +- + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); +- + printf("%s", prefix); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) + } + } + +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) +-{ +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; +- struct perf_event *event; +- +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); +-} +- + SEC("iter/task_file") + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + { +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + if (file->f_op != fops) + return 0; + +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); + e.pid = task->tgid; + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); +- +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; +- +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); +- } +- } +- + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), + task->group_leader->comm); + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ + struct pid_iter_entry { + __u32 id; + int pid; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + char comm[16]; + }; + +-- +2.30.2 + -- 2.30.2 _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-14 8:26 ` Shahab Vahedi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-14 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Arnout Vandecappelle Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 fails: -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- $ make . . . CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct bpf_perf_link' perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); . . . skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in 'struct perf_event' return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); . . . 10 errors generated. make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained from the host machine. See [1] for further details. This commit adds a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [2]. Hopefully, those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. Changelog: v1: Initial submission [3] v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ [3] https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644819.html Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> --- .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 227 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 227 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..cb9ebdec41 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch @@ -0,0 +1,227 @@ +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" + +Building bpftool on Debian bullseye fails [1]. This patch +reverts the offending commit [2]. + +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u + +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f + +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 +--- a/src/main.h ++++ b/src/main.h +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { + + struct obj_refs { + int ref_cnt; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + struct obj_ref *refs; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; + }; + + struct btf; +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 +--- a/src/pids.c ++++ b/src/pids.c +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) + ref->pid = e->pid; + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); + refs->ref_cnt = 1; +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; + + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); + if (err) +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); +- + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); +- + printf("%s", prefix); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) + } + } + +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) +-{ +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; +- struct perf_event *event; +- +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); +-} +- + SEC("iter/task_file") + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + { +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + if (file->f_op != fops) + return 0; + +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); + e.pid = task->tgid; + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); +- +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; +- +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); +- } +- } +- + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), + task->group_leader->comm); + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ + struct pid_iter_entry { + __u32 id; + int pid; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + char comm[16]; + }; +--- + src/main.h | 2 -- + src/pids.c | 8 -------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 +--- a/src/main.h ++++ b/src/main.h +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { + + struct obj_refs { + int ref_cnt; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + struct obj_ref *refs; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; + }; + + struct btf; +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 +--- a/src/pids.c ++++ b/src/pids.c +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) + ref->pid = e->pid; + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); + refs->ref_cnt = 1; +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; + + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); + if (err) +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); +- + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); +- + printf("%s", prefix); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) + } + } + +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) +-{ +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; +- struct perf_event *event; +- +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); +-} +- + SEC("iter/task_file") + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + { +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + if (file->f_op != fops) + return 0; + +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); + e.pid = task->tgid; + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); +- +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; +- +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); +- } +- } +- + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), + task->group_leader->comm); + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ + struct pid_iter_entry { + __u32 id; + int pid; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + char comm[16]; + }; + +-- +2.30.2 + -- 2.30.2 _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-14 8:26 ` Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-14 9:31 ` Shahab Vahedi -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-14 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 fails: -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- $ make . . . CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct bpf_perf_link' perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); . . . skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in 'struct perf_event' return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); . . . 10 errors generated. make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained from the host machine. See [1] for further details. This commit adds a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [2]. Hopefully, those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. Changelog: v1: Initial submission [3] v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool [4] v3: Fix the snafu that resulted in malformed patch file [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ [3] https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644819.html [4] https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644824.html Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> --- .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 129 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..6f9579bd23 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +From d7c78d1e38cde73c85b491a833f0e6e3f0d62654 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" + +Building bpftool on a Debian bullseye with clang-11 fails [1]. +This patch reverts the offending commit [2]. If clang-11 is not +installed, then the "co-re" feature of bpf will not be enabled +and the issue remains dormant. + +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u + +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f + +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +--- + src/main.h | 2 -- + src/pids.c | 8 -------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 +--- a/src/main.h ++++ b/src/main.h +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { + + struct obj_refs { + int ref_cnt; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + struct obj_ref *refs; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; + }; + + struct btf; +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 +--- a/src/pids.c ++++ b/src/pids.c +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) + ref->pid = e->pid; + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); + refs->ref_cnt = 1; +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; + + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); + if (err) +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); +- + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); +- + printf("%s", prefix); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) + } + } + +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) +-{ +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; +- struct perf_event *event; +- +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); +-} +- + SEC("iter/task_file") + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + { +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + if (file->f_op != fops) + return 0; + +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); + e.pid = task->tgid; + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); +- +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; +- +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); +- } +- } +- + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), + task->group_leader->comm); + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ + struct pid_iter_entry { + __u32 id; + int pid; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + char comm[16]; + }; + +-- +2.30.2 + -- 2.30.2 _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-14 9:31 ` Shahab Vahedi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-14 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Arnout Vandecappelle Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 fails: -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- $ make . . . CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct bpf_perf_link' perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); . . . skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in 'struct perf_event' return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); . . . 10 errors generated. make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained from the host machine. See [1] for further details. This commit adds a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [2]. Hopefully, those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. Changelog: v1: Initial submission [3] v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool [4] v3: Fix the snafu that resulted in malformed patch file [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ [3] https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644819.html [4] https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644824.html Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> --- .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 129 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..6f9579bd23 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +From d7c78d1e38cde73c85b491a833f0e6e3f0d62654 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" + +Building bpftool on a Debian bullseye with clang-11 fails [1]. +This patch reverts the offending commit [2]. If clang-11 is not +installed, then the "co-re" feature of bpf will not be enabled +and the issue remains dormant. + +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u + +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f + +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +--- + src/main.h | 2 -- + src/pids.c | 8 -------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 +--- a/src/main.h ++++ b/src/main.h +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { + + struct obj_refs { + int ref_cnt; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + struct obj_ref *refs; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; + }; + + struct btf; +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 +--- a/src/pids.c ++++ b/src/pids.c +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) + ref->pid = e->pid; + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); + refs->ref_cnt = 1; +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; + + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); + if (err) +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); +- + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); +- + printf("%s", prefix); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) + } + } + +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) +-{ +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; +- struct perf_event *event; +- +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); +-} +- + SEC("iter/task_file") + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + { +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + if (file->f_op != fops) + return 0; + +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); + e.pid = task->tgid; + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); +- +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; +- +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); +- } +- } +- + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), + task->group_leader->comm); + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ + struct pid_iter_entry { + __u32 id; + int pid; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + char comm[16]; + }; + +-- +2.30.2 + -- 2.30.2 _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-14 9:31 ` Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-14 17:14 ` Arnout Vandecappelle -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-14 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > fails: > > -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- > $ make > . > . > . > CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o > skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type > 'struct bpf_perf_link' > perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); > . > . > . > skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in > 'struct perf_event' > return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); > . > . > . > 10 errors generated. > make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 > ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- > > There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of > particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained > from the host machine. See [1] for further details. This commit adds > a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. > > There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [2]. Hopefully, > those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. > > Changelog: Patch changelog should be under the --- line, it's not meant to be part of the git history. But of course that means you need to put the references [1][2] above the --- line. (No need to resend for this or any of my other comments, just FYI for future submissions.) > v1: Initial submission [3] It's nice, but not really necessary to have a reference to the old versions. They're easy enough to find back. > v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool [4] > v3: Fix the snafu that resulted in malformed patch file > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u > > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ > > [3] > https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644819.html To refer to a buildroot patch, it's nicer to refer to patchwork, i.e. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/97ea44bb-58fe-d6cb-6c79-9be0b245f2c6@synopsys.com/ Regards, Arnout > > [4] > https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644824.html > > Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > --- > .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 129 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > > diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..6f9579bd23 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ > +From d7c78d1e38cde73c85b491a833f0e6e3f0d62654 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 > +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" > + > +Building bpftool on a Debian bullseye with clang-11 fails [1]. > +This patch reverts the offending commit [2]. If clang-11 is not > +installed, then the "co-re" feature of bpf will not be enabled > +and the issue remains dormant. > + > +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 > +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u > + > +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output > +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f > + > +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > +--- > + src/main.h | 2 -- > + src/pids.c | 8 -------- > + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- > + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- > + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) > + > +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h > +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 > +--- a/src/main.h > ++++ b/src/main.h > +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { > + > + struct obj_refs { > + int ref_cnt; > +- bool has_bpf_cookie; > + struct obj_ref *refs; > +- __u64 bpf_cookie; > + }; > + > + struct btf; > +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c > +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 > +--- a/src/pids.c > ++++ b/src/pids.c > +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) > + ref->pid = e->pid; > + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); > + refs->ref_cnt = 1; > +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; > +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; > + > + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); > + if (err) > +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, > + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) > + break; > + > +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) > +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); > +- > + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); > + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); > + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { > +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) > + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) > + break; > + > +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) > +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); > +- > + printf("%s", prefix); > + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { > + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; > +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 > +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) > + } > + } > + > +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ > +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) > +-{ > +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; > +- struct perf_event *event; > +- > +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); > +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); > +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); > +-} > +- > + SEC("iter/task_file") > + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) > + { > +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) > + if (file->f_op != fops) > + return 0; > + > +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); > + e.pid = task->tgid; > + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); > +- > +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { > +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; > +- > +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { > +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; > +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); > +- } > +- } > +- > + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), > + task->group_leader->comm); > + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); > +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 > +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ > + struct pid_iter_entry { > + __u32 id; > + int pid; > +- __u64 bpf_cookie; > +- bool has_bpf_cookie; > + char comm[16]; > + }; > + > +-- > +2.30.2 > + _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-14 17:14 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-14 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > fails: > > -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- > $ make > . > . > . > CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o > skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type > 'struct bpf_perf_link' > perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); > . > . > . > skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in > 'struct perf_event' > return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); > . > . > . > 10 errors generated. > make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 > ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- > > There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of > particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained > from the host machine. See [1] for further details. This commit adds > a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. > > There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [2]. Hopefully, > those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. > > Changelog: Patch changelog should be under the --- line, it's not meant to be part of the git history. But of course that means you need to put the references [1][2] above the --- line. (No need to resend for this or any of my other comments, just FYI for future submissions.) > v1: Initial submission [3] It's nice, but not really necessary to have a reference to the old versions. They're easy enough to find back. > v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool [4] > v3: Fix the snafu that resulted in malformed patch file > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u > > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ > > [3] > https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644819.html To refer to a buildroot patch, it's nicer to refer to patchwork, i.e. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/97ea44bb-58fe-d6cb-6c79-9be0b245f2c6@synopsys.com/ Regards, Arnout > > [4] > https://lists.buildroot.org/pipermail/buildroot/2022-June/644824.html > > Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > --- > .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 129 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > > diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..6f9579bd23 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ > +From d7c78d1e38cde73c85b491a833f0e6e3f0d62654 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 > +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" > + > +Building bpftool on a Debian bullseye with clang-11 fails [1]. > +This patch reverts the offending commit [2]. If clang-11 is not > +installed, then the "co-re" feature of bpf will not be enabled > +and the issue remains dormant. > + > +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 > +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u > + > +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output > +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f > + > +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > +--- > + src/main.h | 2 -- > + src/pids.c | 8 -------- > + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- > + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- > + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) > + > +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h > +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 > +--- a/src/main.h > ++++ b/src/main.h > +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { > + > + struct obj_refs { > + int ref_cnt; > +- bool has_bpf_cookie; > + struct obj_ref *refs; > +- __u64 bpf_cookie; > + }; > + > + struct btf; > +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c > +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 > +--- a/src/pids.c > ++++ b/src/pids.c > +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) > + ref->pid = e->pid; > + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); > + refs->ref_cnt = 1; > +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; > +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; > + > + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); > + if (err) > +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, > + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) > + break; > + > +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) > +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); > +- > + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); > + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); > + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { > +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) > + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) > + break; > + > +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) > +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); > +- > + printf("%s", prefix); > + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { > + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; > +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 > +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) > + } > + } > + > +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ > +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) > +-{ > +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; > +- struct perf_event *event; > +- > +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); > +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); > +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); > +-} > +- > + SEC("iter/task_file") > + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) > + { > +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) > + if (file->f_op != fops) > + return 0; > + > +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); > + e.pid = task->tgid; > + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); > +- > +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { > +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; > +- > +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { > +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; > +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); > +- } > +- } > +- > + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), > + task->group_leader->comm); > + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); > +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 > +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ > + struct pid_iter_entry { > + __u32 id; > + int pid; > +- __u64 bpf_cookie; > +- bool has_bpf_cookie; > + char comm[16]; > + }; > + > +-- > +2.30.2 > + _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-14 17:14 ` Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-14 17:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-14 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc On 14/06/2022 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > (No need to resend for this or any of my other comments, just FYI for future > submissions.) Actually, the patch didn't appear on patchwork for some reason. It analyzed it as a reply to the previous version of the patch. So you will have to resend it after all. Regards, Arnout _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-14 17:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-14 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc On 14/06/2022 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > (No need to resend for this or any of my other comments, just FYI for future > submissions.) Actually, the patch didn't appear on patchwork for some reason. It analyzed it as a reply to the previous version of the patch. So you will have to resend it after all. Regards, Arnout _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-14 17:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-15 11:03 ` Shahab Vahedi -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-15 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot, Arnout Vandecappelle; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Shahab Vahedi On 6/14/22 19:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > Actually, the patch didn't appear on patchwork for some reason. It analyzed it as a reply to the previous version of the patch. So you will have to resend it after all. Done! [1] [1] patch v4 with reworded commit message https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/29d2a8c7-44cd-da42-5fed-f17ec0f8ccf2@synopsys.com/ -- Shahab _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-15 11:03 ` Shahab Vahedi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-15 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot, Arnout Vandecappelle; +Cc: Shahab Vahedi, linux-snps-arc On 6/14/22 19:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > Actually, the patch didn't appear on patchwork for some reason. It analyzed it as a reply to the previous version of the patch. So you will have to resend it after all. Done! [1] [1] patch v4 with reworded commit message https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/29d2a8c7-44cd-da42-5fed-f17ec0f8ccf2@synopsys.com/ -- Shahab _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-14 17:14 ` Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-15 11:10 ` Shahab Vahedi -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-15 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle, buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Shahab Vahedi Hi Arnout, On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > > How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the second paragraph of the commit message. [1] [v4,1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/29d2a8c7-44cd-da42-5fed-f17ec0f8ccf2@synopsys.com/ -- Shahab _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-15 11:10 ` Shahab Vahedi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-15 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle, buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Shahab Vahedi Hi Arnout, On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > > How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the second paragraph of the commit message. [1] [v4,1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/29d2a8c7-44cd-da42-5fed-f17ec0f8ccf2@synopsys.com/ -- Shahab _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-15 11:10 ` Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-15 23:27 ` James Hilliard -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: James Hilliard @ 2022-06-15 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, buildroot On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: > > Hi Arnout, > > On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > > On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > > > > How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > > No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The > bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang > and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the > second paragraph of the commit message. I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf#bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > > [1] [v4,1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/29d2a8c7-44cd-da42-5fed-f17ec0f8ccf2@synopsys.com/ > > -- > Shahab > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot@buildroot.org > https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-15 23:27 ` James Hilliard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: James Hilliard @ 2022-06-15 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi; +Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle, buildroot, linux-snps-arc On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: > > Hi Arnout, > > On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > > On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > > > > How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > > No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The > bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang > and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the > second paragraph of the commit message. I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf#bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > > [1] [v4,1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/29d2a8c7-44cd-da42-5fed-f17ec0f8ccf2@synopsys.com/ > > -- > Shahab > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot@buildroot.org > https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-15 23:27 ` James Hilliard @ 2022-06-16 8:11 ` Shahab Vahedi -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-16 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Hilliard, Shahab Vahedi; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, buildroot On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot > <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: >> >> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>> >>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 >>> >>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... >> >> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The >> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang >> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the >> second paragraph of the commit message. > > I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have > version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 > > Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: > https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. -- Shahab _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-16 8:11 ` Shahab Vahedi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-16 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Hilliard, Shahab Vahedi Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle, buildroot, linux-snps-arc On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot > <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: >> >> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>> >>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 >>> >>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... >> >> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The >> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang >> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the >> second paragraph of the commit message. > > I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have > version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 > > Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: > https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. -- Shahab _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-16 8:11 ` Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-19 15:20 ` Arnout Vandecappelle -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-19 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi, James Hilliard; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, buildroot On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot >> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>>> >>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 >>>> >>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... >>> >>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The >>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang >>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the >>> second paragraph of the commit message. >> >> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have >> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 >> >> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: >> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > > You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do > with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed > on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. > > To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet > the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed clang is good enough. And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's going to be expensive to build. Regards, Arnout _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-19 15:20 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-19 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi, James Hilliard; +Cc: buildroot, linux-snps-arc On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot >> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>>> >>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 >>>> >>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... >>> >>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The >>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang >>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the >>> second paragraph of the commit message. >> >> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have >> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 >> >> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: >> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > > You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do > with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed > on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. > > To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet > the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed clang is good enough. And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's going to be expensive to build. Regards, Arnout _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-19 15:20 ` Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-19 23:19 ` James Hilliard -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: James Hilliard @ 2022-06-19 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Shahab Vahedi, buildroot On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > > > > On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > > On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot > >> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > >>>> > >>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > >>> > >>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The > >>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang > >>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the > >>> second paragraph of the commit message. > >> > >> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have > >> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: > >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 > >> > >> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: > >> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > > > > You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do > > with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed > > on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. > > > > To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet > > the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. > > > Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it > to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. > Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed > clang is good enough. Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could be tested by the autobuilders. It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able to support due to clang/llvm being too old. > > And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's > going to be expensive to build. We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains eventually, but for now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are already building a clang/llvm toolchain. There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC treats BPF as a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler don't natively handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). I have an experimental branch for that here: https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based on is merged: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 > > Regards, > Arnout > _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-19 23:19 ` James Hilliard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: James Hilliard @ 2022-06-19 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle; +Cc: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot, linux-snps-arc On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > > > > On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > > On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot > >> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > >>>> > >>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > >>> > >>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The > >>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang > >>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the > >>> second paragraph of the commit message. > >> > >> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have > >> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: > >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 > >> > >> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: > >> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > > > > You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do > > with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed > > on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. > > > > To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet > > the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. > > > Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it > to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. > Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed > clang is good enough. Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could be tested by the autobuilders. It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able to support due to clang/llvm being too old. > > And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's > going to be expensive to build. We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains eventually, but for now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are already building a clang/llvm toolchain. There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC treats BPF as a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler don't natively handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). I have an experimental branch for that here: https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based on is merged: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 > > Regards, > Arnout > _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-19 23:19 ` James Hilliard @ 2022-06-20 6:45 ` Arnout Vandecappelle -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-20 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Hilliard; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Shahab Vahedi, buildroot On 20/06/2022 01:19, James Hilliard wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>> On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot >>>> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The >>>>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang >>>>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the >>>>> second paragraph of the commit message. >>>> >>>> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have >>>> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: >>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 >>>> >>>> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: >>>> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere >>> >>> You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do >>> with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed >>> on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. >> > >>> To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet >>> the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. >> >> >> Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it >> to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. >> Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed >> clang is good enough. > > Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult We do it for GCC, so we can do something similar for clang. > to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although > clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could > be tested by the autobuilders. For GCC, the host toolchain is completely unrelated to the target toolchain. With clang, it's true that it's possible to use the target compiler for host builds as well, but don't we still need binutils? So in my mind, there would be a separate host clang toolchain and target clang toolchain. > It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for > some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able > to support > due to clang/llvm being too old. Unfortunately your series is rather large and has no Reviewed or Acked by tags... So it tends to languish on patchwork. >> And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's >> going to be expensive to build. > > We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains > eventually, but for > now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are > already building > a clang/llvm toolchain. Although I'm usually in favour of automatic dependencies, in this case I'd say it's worth adding an explicit config option. > There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with But then it would depend on both host and target GCC >= 12... > as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC > toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to > sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC > treats BPF as > a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler > don't natively > handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). Ouch, so we still can't reuse the existing host toolchain for the host parts? then it doesn't help that much, does it? Regards, Arnout > > I have an experimental branch for that here: > https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf > > I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based > on is merged: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 > >> >> Regards, >> Arnout >> _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-20 6:45 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-20 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Hilliard; +Cc: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot, linux-snps-arc On 20/06/2022 01:19, James Hilliard wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>> On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot >>>> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The >>>>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang >>>>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the >>>>> second paragraph of the commit message. >>>> >>>> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have >>>> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: >>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 >>>> >>>> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: >>>> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere >>> >>> You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do >>> with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed >>> on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. >> > >>> To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet >>> the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. >> >> >> Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it >> to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. >> Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed >> clang is good enough. > > Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult We do it for GCC, so we can do something similar for clang. > to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although > clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could > be tested by the autobuilders. For GCC, the host toolchain is completely unrelated to the target toolchain. With clang, it's true that it's possible to use the target compiler for host builds as well, but don't we still need binutils? So in my mind, there would be a separate host clang toolchain and target clang toolchain. > It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for > some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able > to support > due to clang/llvm being too old. Unfortunately your series is rather large and has no Reviewed or Acked by tags... So it tends to languish on patchwork. >> And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's >> going to be expensive to build. > > We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains > eventually, but for > now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are > already building > a clang/llvm toolchain. Although I'm usually in favour of automatic dependencies, in this case I'd say it's worth adding an explicit config option. > There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with But then it would depend on both host and target GCC >= 12... > as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC > toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to > sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC > treats BPF as > a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler > don't natively > handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). Ouch, so we still can't reuse the existing host toolchain for the host parts? then it doesn't help that much, does it? Regards, Arnout > > I have an experimental branch for that here: > https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf > > I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based > on is merged: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 > >> >> Regards, >> Arnout >> _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-20 6:45 ` Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-20 9:17 ` James Hilliard -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: James Hilliard @ 2022-06-20 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Shahab Vahedi, buildroot On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:45 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > > > > On 20/06/2022 01:19, James Hilliard wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>> On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot > >>>> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>>>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > >>>>> > >>>>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The > >>>>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang > >>>>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the > >>>>> second paragraph of the commit message. > >>>> > >>>> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have > >>>> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: > >>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 > >>>> > >>>> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: > >>>> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > >>> > >>> You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do > >>> with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed > >>> on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. > >> > > >>> To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet > >>> the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. > >> > >> > >> Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it > >> to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. > >> Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed > >> clang is good enough. > > > > Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult > > We do it for GCC, so we can do something similar for clang. > > > to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although > > clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could > > be tested by the autobuilders. > > For GCC, the host toolchain is completely unrelated to the target toolchain. > With clang, it's true that it's possible to use the target compiler for host > builds as well, but don't we still need binutils? So in my mind, there would be > a separate host clang toolchain and target clang toolchain. BPF is kinda weird...for both clang and GCC. It's sorta a separate architecture in the compiler...but is also sorta not architecture specific in what it builds for. > > > > It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for > > some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able > > to support > > due to clang/llvm being too old. > > Unfortunately your series is rather large and has no Reviewed or Acked by > tags... So it tends to languish on patchwork. The tested-by for the v12 series ended up in the wrong thread I think: https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/BN2P110MB16408DC4537E54EF7ECC7906F21A9@BN2P110MB1640.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/ > > > >> And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's > >> going to be expensive to build. > > > > We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains > > eventually, but for > > now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are > > already building > > a clang/llvm toolchain. > > Although I'm usually in favour of automatic dependencies, in this case I'd say > it's worth adding an explicit config option. > > > > There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with > > But then it would depend on both host and target GCC >= 12... I thought we don't support GCC on the target. We would essentially have a 2 architecture cross-toolchain(one real target arch, and the BPF virtual architecture compiler/assemblers and such). > > > as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC > > toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to > > sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC > > treats BPF as > > a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler > > don't natively > > handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). > > Ouch, so we still can't reuse the existing host toolchain for the host parts? > then it doesn't help that much, does it? We can create a GCC toolchain that can target both BPF and the normal target architecture...but it's sorta a strange multiarch style toolchain. > > Regards, > Arnout > > > > > I have an experimental branch for that here: > > https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf > > > > I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based > > on is merged: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 > > > >> > >> Regards, > >> Arnout > >> _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-20 9:17 ` James Hilliard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: James Hilliard @ 2022-06-20 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle; +Cc: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot, linux-snps-arc On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:45 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > > > > On 20/06/2022 01:19, James Hilliard wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>> On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot > >>>> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>>>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > >>>>> > >>>>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The > >>>>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang > >>>>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the > >>>>> second paragraph of the commit message. > >>>> > >>>> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have > >>>> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: > >>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 > >>>> > >>>> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: > >>>> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > >>> > >>> You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do > >>> with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed > >>> on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. > >> > > >>> To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet > >>> the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. > >> > >> > >> Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it > >> to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. > >> Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed > >> clang is good enough. > > > > Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult > > We do it for GCC, so we can do something similar for clang. > > > to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although > > clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could > > be tested by the autobuilders. > > For GCC, the host toolchain is completely unrelated to the target toolchain. > With clang, it's true that it's possible to use the target compiler for host > builds as well, but don't we still need binutils? So in my mind, there would be > a separate host clang toolchain and target clang toolchain. BPF is kinda weird...for both clang and GCC. It's sorta a separate architecture in the compiler...but is also sorta not architecture specific in what it builds for. > > > > It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for > > some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able > > to support > > due to clang/llvm being too old. > > Unfortunately your series is rather large and has no Reviewed or Acked by > tags... So it tends to languish on patchwork. The tested-by for the v12 series ended up in the wrong thread I think: https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/BN2P110MB16408DC4537E54EF7ECC7906F21A9@BN2P110MB1640.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/ > > > >> And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's > >> going to be expensive to build. > > > > We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains > > eventually, but for > > now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are > > already building > > a clang/llvm toolchain. > > Although I'm usually in favour of automatic dependencies, in this case I'd say > it's worth adding an explicit config option. > > > > There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with > > But then it would depend on both host and target GCC >= 12... I thought we don't support GCC on the target. We would essentially have a 2 architecture cross-toolchain(one real target arch, and the BPF virtual architecture compiler/assemblers and such). > > > as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC > > toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to > > sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC > > treats BPF as > > a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler > > don't natively > > handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). > > Ouch, so we still can't reuse the existing host toolchain for the host parts? > then it doesn't help that much, does it? We can create a GCC toolchain that can target both BPF and the normal target architecture...but it's sorta a strange multiarch style toolchain. > > Regards, > Arnout > > > > > I have an experimental branch for that here: > > https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf > > > > I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based > > on is merged: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 > > > >> > >> Regards, > >> Arnout > >> _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-20 9:17 ` James Hilliard @ 2022-06-20 18:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-20 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Hilliard; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Shahab Vahedi, buildroot On 20/06/2022 11:17, James Hilliard wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:45 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 20/06/2022 01:19, James Hilliard wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>>> On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot >>>>>> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>>>>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The >>>>>>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang >>>>>>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the >>>>>>> second paragraph of the commit message. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have >>>>>> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: >>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 >>>>>> >>>>>> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: >>>>>> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere >>>>> >>>>> You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do >>>>> with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed >>>>> on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. >>>> > >>>>> To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet >>>>> the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it >>>> to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. >>>> Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed >>>> clang is good enough. >>> >>> Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult >> >> We do it for GCC, so we can do something similar for clang. >> >>> to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although >>> clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could >>> be tested by the autobuilders. >> >> For GCC, the host toolchain is completely unrelated to the target toolchain. >> With clang, it's true that it's possible to use the target compiler for host >> builds as well, but don't we still need binutils? So in my mind, there would be >> a separate host clang toolchain and target clang toolchain. > > BPF is kinda weird...for both clang and GCC. It's sorta a separate > architecture in > the compiler...but is also sorta not architecture specific in what it > builds for. Ah! I understood from Shahab's message that host-clang was used to build a host tool that is then used to build the target package. But it's actually used as a cross-compiler then, just with a different target. >>> It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for >>> some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able >>> to support >>> due to clang/llvm being too old. >> >> Unfortunately your series is rather large and has no Reviewed or Acked by >> tags... So it tends to languish on patchwork. > > The tested-by for the v12 series ended up in the wrong thread I think: > https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/BN2P110MB16408DC4537E54EF7ECC7906F21A9@BN2P110MB1640.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/ All right, I'll look into it! >>>> And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's >>>> going to be expensive to build. >>> >>> We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains >>> eventually, but for >>> now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are >>> already building >>> a clang/llvm toolchain. >> >> Although I'm usually in favour of automatic dependencies, in this case I'd say >> it's worth adding an explicit config option. >> >> >>> There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with >> >> But then it would depend on both host and target GCC >= 12... > > I thought we don't support GCC on the target. Yeah, terminology is difficult... With "host gcc" I meant "the gcc that builds for the host, i.e. the native gcc" and with "target gcc" I meant "the gcc that builds for the target, i.e. the cross-gcc". > We would essentially have a 2 architecture cross-toolchain(one real > target arch, and the > BPF virtual architecture compiler/assemblers and such). Yeah, that makes sense... So the idea is that we build GCC with bpf support, similar like how we build it with Fortran support, right? Regards, Arnout >>> as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC >>> toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to >>> sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC >>> treats BPF as >>> a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler >>> don't natively >>> handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). >> >> Ouch, so we still can't reuse the existing host toolchain for the host parts? >> then it doesn't help that much, does it? > > We can create a GCC toolchain that can target both BPF and the normal target > architecture...but it's sorta a strange multiarch style toolchain. > >> >> Regards, >> Arnout >> >>> >>> I have an experimental branch for that here: >>> https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf >>> >>> I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based >>> on is merged: >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 >>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Arnout >>>> _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-20 18:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-06-20 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Hilliard; +Cc: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot, linux-snps-arc On 20/06/2022 11:17, James Hilliard wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:45 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 20/06/2022 01:19, James Hilliard wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>>> On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot >>>>>> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>>>>>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The >>>>>>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang >>>>>>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the >>>>>>> second paragraph of the commit message. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have >>>>>> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: >>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 >>>>>> >>>>>> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: >>>>>> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere >>>>> >>>>> You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do >>>>> with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed >>>>> on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. >>>> > >>>>> To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet >>>>> the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it >>>> to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. >>>> Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed >>>> clang is good enough. >>> >>> Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult >> >> We do it for GCC, so we can do something similar for clang. >> >>> to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although >>> clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could >>> be tested by the autobuilders. >> >> For GCC, the host toolchain is completely unrelated to the target toolchain. >> With clang, it's true that it's possible to use the target compiler for host >> builds as well, but don't we still need binutils? So in my mind, there would be >> a separate host clang toolchain and target clang toolchain. > > BPF is kinda weird...for both clang and GCC. It's sorta a separate > architecture in > the compiler...but is also sorta not architecture specific in what it > builds for. Ah! I understood from Shahab's message that host-clang was used to build a host tool that is then used to build the target package. But it's actually used as a cross-compiler then, just with a different target. >>> It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for >>> some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able >>> to support >>> due to clang/llvm being too old. >> >> Unfortunately your series is rather large and has no Reviewed or Acked by >> tags... So it tends to languish on patchwork. > > The tested-by for the v12 series ended up in the wrong thread I think: > https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/BN2P110MB16408DC4537E54EF7ECC7906F21A9@BN2P110MB1640.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/ All right, I'll look into it! >>>> And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's >>>> going to be expensive to build. >>> >>> We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains >>> eventually, but for >>> now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are >>> already building >>> a clang/llvm toolchain. >> >> Although I'm usually in favour of automatic dependencies, in this case I'd say >> it's worth adding an explicit config option. >> >> >>> There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with >> >> But then it would depend on both host and target GCC >= 12... > > I thought we don't support GCC on the target. Yeah, terminology is difficult... With "host gcc" I meant "the gcc that builds for the host, i.e. the native gcc" and with "target gcc" I meant "the gcc that builds for the target, i.e. the cross-gcc". > We would essentially have a 2 architecture cross-toolchain(one real > target arch, and the > BPF virtual architecture compiler/assemblers and such). Yeah, that makes sense... So the idea is that we build GCC with bpf support, similar like how we build it with Fortran support, right? Regards, Arnout >>> as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC >>> toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to >>> sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC >>> treats BPF as >>> a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler >>> don't natively >>> handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). >> >> Ouch, so we still can't reuse the existing host toolchain for the host parts? >> then it doesn't help that much, does it? > > We can create a GCC toolchain that can target both BPF and the normal target > architecture...but it's sorta a strange multiarch style toolchain. > >> >> Regards, >> Arnout >> >>> >>> I have an experimental branch for that here: >>> https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf >>> >>> I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based >>> on is merged: >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 >>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Arnout >>>> _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-20 18:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2022-08-09 9:46 ` James Hilliard -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: James Hilliard @ 2022-08-09 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Shahab Vahedi, buildroot On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:27 PM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > > > > On 20/06/2022 11:17, James Hilliard wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:45 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 20/06/2022 01:19, James Hilliard wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>>>> On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot > >>>>>> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The > >>>>>>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang > >>>>>>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the > >>>>>>> second paragraph of the commit message. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have > >>>>>> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: > >>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: > >>>>>> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > >>>>> > >>>>> You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do > >>>>> with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed > >>>>> on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. > >>>> > > >>>>> To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet > >>>>> the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it > >>>> to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. > >>>> Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed > >>>> clang is good enough. > >>> > >>> Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult > >> > >> We do it for GCC, so we can do something similar for clang. > >> > >>> to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although > >>> clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could > >>> be tested by the autobuilders. > >> > >> For GCC, the host toolchain is completely unrelated to the target toolchain. > >> With clang, it's true that it's possible to use the target compiler for host > >> builds as well, but don't we still need binutils? So in my mind, there would be > >> a separate host clang toolchain and target clang toolchain. > > > > BPF is kinda weird...for both clang and GCC. It's sorta a separate > > architecture in > > the compiler...but is also sorta not architecture specific in what it > > builds for. > > Ah! I understood from Shahab's message that host-clang was used to build a > host tool that is then used to build the target package. But it's actually used > as a cross-compiler then, just with a different target. > > > >>> It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for > >>> some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able > >>> to support > >>> due to clang/llvm being too old. > >> > >> Unfortunately your series is rather large and has no Reviewed or Acked by > >> tags... So it tends to languish on patchwork. > > > > The tested-by for the v12 series ended up in the wrong thread I think: > > https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/BN2P110MB16408DC4537E54EF7ECC7906F21A9@BN2P110MB1640.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/ > > All right, I'll look into it! > > > >>>> And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's > >>>> going to be expensive to build. > >>> > >>> We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains > >>> eventually, but for > >>> now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are > >>> already building > >>> a clang/llvm toolchain. > >> > >> Although I'm usually in favour of automatic dependencies, in this case I'd say > >> it's worth adding an explicit config option. > >> > >> > >>> There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with > >> > >> But then it would depend on both host and target GCC >= 12... > > > > I thought we don't support GCC on the target. > > Yeah, terminology is difficult... With "host gcc" I meant "the gcc that builds > for the host, i.e. the native gcc" and with "target gcc" I meant "the gcc that > builds for the target, i.e. the cross-gcc". > > > We would essentially have a 2 architecture cross-toolchain(one real > > target arch, and the > > BPF virtual architecture compiler/assemblers and such). > > > Yeah, that makes sense... So the idea is that we build GCC with bpf support, > similar like how we build it with Fortran support, right? Well it's a bit different in how we build the toolchain, but it's more or less used like a separate language when building packages that need BPF. I sent an initial series adding BPF support: https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/20220809094109.2279598-1-james.hilliard1@gmail.com/ > > > Regards, > Arnout > > >>> as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC > >>> toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to > >>> sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC > >>> treats BPF as > >>> a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler > >>> don't natively > >>> handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). > >> > >> Ouch, so we still can't reuse the existing host toolchain for the host parts? > >> then it doesn't help that much, does it? > > > > We can create a GCC toolchain that can target both BPF and the normal target > > architecture...but it's sorta a strange multiarch style toolchain. > > > >> > >> Regards, > >> Arnout > >> > >>> > >>> I have an experimental branch for that here: > >>> https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf > >>> > >>> I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based > >>> on is merged: > >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Arnout > >>>> _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-08-09 9:46 ` James Hilliard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: James Hilliard @ 2022-08-09 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle; +Cc: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot, linux-snps-arc On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:27 PM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > > > > On 20/06/2022 11:17, James Hilliard wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:45 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 20/06/2022 01:19, James Hilliard wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 9:20 AM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 16/06/2022 10:11, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>>>> On 6/16/22 01:27, James Hilliard wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM Shahab Vahedi via buildroot > >>>>>> <buildroot@buildroot.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 6/14/22 19:14, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 14/06/2022 11:31, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 and clang-11 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> How do you build host-bpftool with clang in Buildroot context? HOSTCC is set to gcc in the Makefile... Do you supply an explicit HOSTCC= on the Buildroot command line? I'm not sure if we are really interested in carrying fixes for such exotic and not-really-supported situations... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, I don't do any sort of trickery to build bpftool on my end. The > >>>>>>> bootstrapping, if becomes available for your configuration, uses clang > >>>>>>> and only clang. I tried to explain this in v4 of the patch [1], the > >>>>>>> second paragraph of the commit message. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think clang/llvm support isn't going to work correctly yet since we only have > >>>>>> version 9.0.1, there's a series bumping to version 11.1.0 that should fix that: > >>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=291585 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Minimum clang/llvm version for libbpf co-re is version 10: > >>>>>> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf*bpf-co-re-compile-once--run-everywhere > >>>>> > >>>>> You're right about the clang version, but it doesn't have anything to do > >>>>> with Buildroot's clang. The build process uses the clang that is installed > >>>>> on the host. For Debian bullseye, that is clang 11. > >>>> > > >>>>> To emphasise, I am cross-building bpftool for my "arc-linux" target, and yet > >>>>> the bootstrap part of bpftool, uses the x86 clang of the Debian machine. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hm, that smells like we actually want to build host-clang (after updating it > >>>> to 11.1.0 of course) so that we are sure a known version of clang is used. > >>>> Possibly with a check-host-clang check to avoid building it if the installed > >>>> clang is good enough. > >>> > >>> Dealing with multiple external clang versions may be a bit tricky and difficult > >> > >> We do it for GCC, so we can do something similar for clang. > >> > >>> to test properly, we don't really want to use the system clang/llvm although > >>> clang/llvm external toolchain support may be desirable here as those could > >>> be tested by the autobuilders. > >> > >> For GCC, the host toolchain is completely unrelated to the target toolchain. > >> With clang, it's true that it's possible to use the target compiler for host > >> builds as well, but don't we still need binutils? So in my mind, there would be > >> a separate host clang toolchain and target clang toolchain. > > > > BPF is kinda weird...for both clang and GCC. It's sorta a separate > > architecture in > > the compiler...but is also sorta not architecture specific in what it > > builds for. > > Ah! I understood from Shahab's message that host-clang was used to build a > host tool that is then used to build the target package. But it's actually used > as a cross-compiler then, just with a different target. > > > >>> It would be good to get clang/llvm updated soon as systemd is now using bpf for > >>> some service security/isolation features that we currently aren't able > >>> to support > >>> due to clang/llvm being too old. > >> > >> Unfortunately your series is rather large and has no Reviewed or Acked by > >> tags... So it tends to languish on patchwork. > > > > The tested-by for the v12 series ended up in the wrong thread I think: > > https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/BN2P110MB16408DC4537E54EF7ECC7906F21A9@BN2P110MB1640.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/ > > All right, I'll look into it! > > > >>>> And we probably want a user-visible option to enable co-re then, because it's > >>>> going to be expensive to build. > >>> > >>> We may want to make llvm/clang part of the pre-built toolchains > >>> eventually, but for > >>> now I'd say we should just conditionally enable co-re here if we are > >>> already building > >>> a clang/llvm toolchain. > >> > >> Although I'm usually in favour of automatic dependencies, in this case I'd say > >> it's worth adding an explicit config option. > >> > >> > >>> There's some early GCC support for co-re in 12.1 which I was experimenting with > >> > >> But then it would depend on both host and target GCC >= 12... > > > > I thought we don't support GCC on the target. > > Yeah, terminology is difficult... With "host gcc" I meant "the gcc that builds > for the host, i.e. the native gcc" and with "target gcc" I meant "the gcc that > builds for the target, i.e. the cross-gcc". > > > We would essentially have a 2 architecture cross-toolchain(one real > > target arch, and the > > BPF virtual architecture compiler/assemblers and such). > > > Yeah, that makes sense... So the idea is that we build GCC with bpf support, > similar like how we build it with Fortran support, right? Well it's a bit different in how we build the toolchain, but it's more or less used like a separate language when building packages that need BPF. I sent an initial series adding BPF support: https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/20220809094109.2279598-1-james.hilliard1@gmail.com/ > > > Regards, > Arnout > > >>> as well which may reduce the need for a llvm/clang toolchain for co-re. The GCC > >>> toolchain BPF support build process is a bit complex however as one needs to > >>> sorta do a hybrid multitarget build with GCC and binutils since GCC > >>> treats BPF as > >>> a separate target(and since GCC along with the binutils GAS assembler > >>> don't natively > >>> handle multi-target toolchain builds themselves). > >> > >> Ouch, so we still can't reuse the existing host toolchain for the host parts? > >> then it doesn't help that much, does it? > > > > We can create a GCC toolchain that can target both BPF and the normal target > > architecture...but it's sorta a strange multiarch style toolchain. > > > >> > >> Regards, > >> Arnout > >> > >>> > >>> I have an experimental branch for that here: > >>> https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/compare/master...jameshilliard:ebpf > >>> > >>> I'll try and clean that up a bit once the GCC 12.1 series it is based > >>> on is merged: > >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=302389 > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Arnout > >>>> _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-13 21:30 [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-15 10:57 ` Shahab Vahedi 2022-06-15 10:57 ` Shahab Vahedi 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-15 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Shahab Vahedi Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 fails: -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- $ make . . . CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct bpf_perf_link' perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); . . . skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in 'struct perf_event' return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); . . . 10 errors generated. make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- To be clearer about the setup, there is a clang (11) installed on this system. bpftool's build process enables "co-re" feature (Compile-Once, Run-Everywhere) if the clang compiler is new enough to support BTF_KIND_VAR [1]. When that happens, bpftool will bootstrap itself: build/bootstrap/libbpf.a. This bootstrap part is about those *.bpf.c programs and are only built by invoking clang [2], irrespective of the compiler used to build the rest of the bpftool. To sum it up, to reproduce the issue, all you need is having the "co-re" feature enabled and a kernel that does not provide all the data structures expected. There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained from the host machine. See [3] for further details. This commit adds a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [4]. Hopefully, those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. [1] Checking for the clang support https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/d4469819d1d639ae2354f3d2ddd10377f081a576/src/Makefile.feature#L12 [2] Using clang to bootstrap https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/d4469819d1d639ae2354f3d2ddd10377f081a576/src/Makefile#L175 [3] Question about the problem https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u [4] Pending patch series https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> --- Changelog: v1: Initial submission v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool v3: Fix the snafu that resulted in malformed patch file v4: Reword the commit message to make it clearer .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 129 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..6f9579bd23 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +From d7c78d1e38cde73c85b491a833f0e6e3f0d62654 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" + +Building bpftool on a Debian bullseye with clang-11 fails [1]. +This patch reverts the offending commit [2]. If clang-11 is not +installed, then the "co-re" feature of bpf will not be enabled +and the issue remains dormant. + +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u + +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f + +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +--- + src/main.h | 2 -- + src/pids.c | 8 -------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 +--- a/src/main.h ++++ b/src/main.h +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { + + struct obj_refs { + int ref_cnt; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + struct obj_ref *refs; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; + }; + + struct btf; +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 +--- a/src/pids.c ++++ b/src/pids.c +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) + ref->pid = e->pid; + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); + refs->ref_cnt = 1; +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; + + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); + if (err) +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); +- + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); +- + printf("%s", prefix); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) + } + } + +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) +-{ +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; +- struct perf_event *event; +- +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); +-} +- + SEC("iter/task_file") + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + { +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + if (file->f_op != fops) + return 0; + +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); + e.pid = task->tgid; + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); +- +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; +- +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); +- } +- } +- + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), + task->group_leader->comm); + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ + struct pid_iter_entry { + __u32 id; + int pid; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + char comm[16]; + }; + +-- +2.30.2 + -- 2.30.2 _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-15 10:57 ` Shahab Vahedi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-15 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot; +Cc: Shahab Vahedi, Arnout Vandecappelle, linux-snps-arc Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 fails: -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- $ make . . . CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct bpf_perf_link' perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); . . . skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in 'struct perf_event' return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); . . . 10 errors generated. make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- To be clearer about the setup, there is a clang (11) installed on this system. bpftool's build process enables "co-re" feature (Compile-Once, Run-Everywhere) if the clang compiler is new enough to support BTF_KIND_VAR [1]. When that happens, bpftool will bootstrap itself: build/bootstrap/libbpf.a. This bootstrap part is about those *.bpf.c programs and are only built by invoking clang [2], irrespective of the compiler used to build the rest of the bpftool. To sum it up, to reproduce the issue, all you need is having the "co-re" feature enabled and a kernel that does not provide all the data structures expected. There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained from the host machine. See [3] for further details. This commit adds a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [4]. Hopefully, those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. [1] Checking for the clang support https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/d4469819d1d639ae2354f3d2ddd10377f081a576/src/Makefile.feature#L12 [2] Using clang to bootstrap https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/d4469819d1d639ae2354f3d2ddd10377f081a576/src/Makefile#L175 [3] Question about the problem https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u [4] Pending patch series https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> --- Changelog: v1: Initial submission v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool v3: Fix the snafu that resulted in malformed patch file v4: Reword the commit message to make it clearer .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 129 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..6f9579bd23 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +From d7c78d1e38cde73c85b491a833f0e6e3f0d62654 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" + +Building bpftool on a Debian bullseye with clang-11 fails [1]. +This patch reverts the offending commit [2]. If clang-11 is not +installed, then the "co-re" feature of bpf will not be enabled +and the issue remains dormant. + +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u + +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f + +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> +--- + src/main.h | 2 -- + src/pids.c | 8 -------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 +--- a/src/main.h ++++ b/src/main.h +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { + + struct obj_refs { + int ref_cnt; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + struct obj_ref *refs; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; + }; + + struct btf; +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 +--- a/src/pids.c ++++ b/src/pids.c +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) + ref->pid = e->pid; + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); + refs->ref_cnt = 1; +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; + + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); + if (err) +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); +- + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) + break; + +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); +- + printf("%s", prefix); + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) + } + } + +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) +-{ +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; +- struct perf_event *event; +- +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); +-} +- + SEC("iter/task_file") + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + { +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) + if (file->f_op != fops) + return 0; + +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); + e.pid = task->tgid; + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); +- +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; +- +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); +- } +- } +- + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), + task->group_leader->comm); + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ + struct pid_iter_entry { + __u32 id; + int pid; +- __u64 bpf_cookie; +- bool has_bpf_cookie; + char comm[16]; + }; + +-- +2.30.2 + -- 2.30.2 _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-15 10:57 ` Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-24 14:21 ` Shahab Vahedi -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2022-06-24 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc ping! _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2022-06-24 14:21 ` Shahab Vahedi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi @ 2022-06-24 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: buildroot; +Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle, linux-snps-arc ping! _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2022-06-15 10:57 ` Shahab Vahedi @ 2023-02-08 16:36 ` Arnout Vandecappelle -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2023-02-08 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc Hi Shahab, On 15/06/2022 12:57, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 fails: > > -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- > $ make > . > . > . > CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o > skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type > 'struct bpf_perf_link' > perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); > . > . > . > skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in > 'struct perf_event' > return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); > . > . > . > 10 errors generated. > make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 > ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- > > To be clearer about the setup, there is a clang (11) installed on this > system. bpftool's build process enables "co-re" feature (Compile-Once, > Run-Everywhere) if the clang compiler is new enough to support > BTF_KIND_VAR [1]. When that happens, bpftool will bootstrap itself: > build/bootstrap/libbpf.a. This bootstrap part is about those *.bpf.c > programs and are only built by invoking clang [2], irrespective of the > compiler used to build the rest of the bpftool. To sum it up, to > reproduce the issue, all you need is having the "co-re" feature > enabled and a kernel that does not provide all the data structures > expected. > > There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of > particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained > from the host machine. See [3] for further details. This commit adds > a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. > > There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [4]. Hopefully, > those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. Unfortunately, bpftool has been bumped two times since then and it looks like those patches are still not included... > > [1] Checking for the clang support > https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/d4469819d1d639ae2354f3d2ddd10377f081a576/src/Makefile.feature#L12 > > [2] Using clang to bootstrap > https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/d4469819d1d639ae2354f3d2ddd10377f081a576/src/Makefile#L175 > > [3] Question about the problem > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u > > [4] Pending patch series > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to fix your issue? For the time being, I marked this as Changes Requested. If the upstream patches are not sufficient, please send a mail upstream (as a reply to that series) explaining the problem (again), and re-send this patch to Buildroot. If it does fix things, please send a mail upstream to ask to move the series forward (explaining the issue you have), and send a patch to Buildroot that adds the needed patches. Thanks! Regards, Arnout > > Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > --- > > Changelog: > v1: Initial submission > v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool > v3: Fix the snafu that resulted in malformed patch file > v4: Reword the commit message to make it clearer > > .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 129 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > > diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..6f9579bd23 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ > +From d7c78d1e38cde73c85b491a833f0e6e3f0d62654 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 > +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" > + > +Building bpftool on a Debian bullseye with clang-11 fails [1]. > +This patch reverts the offending commit [2]. If clang-11 is not > +installed, then the "co-re" feature of bpf will not be enabled > +and the issue remains dormant. > + > +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 > +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u > + > +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output > +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f > + > +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > +--- > + src/main.h | 2 -- > + src/pids.c | 8 -------- > + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- > + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- > + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) > + > +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h > +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 > +--- a/src/main.h > ++++ b/src/main.h > +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { > + > + struct obj_refs { > + int ref_cnt; > +- bool has_bpf_cookie; > + struct obj_ref *refs; > +- __u64 bpf_cookie; > + }; > + > + struct btf; > +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c > +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 > +--- a/src/pids.c > ++++ b/src/pids.c > +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) > + ref->pid = e->pid; > + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); > + refs->ref_cnt = 1; > +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; > +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; > + > + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); > + if (err) > +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, > + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) > + break; > + > +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) > +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); > +- > + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); > + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); > + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { > +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) > + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) > + break; > + > +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) > +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); > +- > + printf("%s", prefix); > + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { > + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; > +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 > +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) > + } > + } > + > +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ > +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) > +-{ > +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; > +- struct perf_event *event; > +- > +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); > +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); > +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); > +-} > +- > + SEC("iter/task_file") > + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) > + { > +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) > + if (file->f_op != fops) > + return 0; > + > +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); > + e.pid = task->tgid; > + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); > +- > +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { > +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; > +- > +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { > +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; > +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); > +- } > +- } > +- > + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), > + task->group_leader->comm); > + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); > +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 > +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ > + struct pid_iter_entry { > + __u32 id; > + int pid; > +- __u64 bpf_cookie; > +- bool has_bpf_cookie; > + char comm[16]; > + }; > + > +-- > +2.30.2 > + _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2023-02-08 16:36 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2023-02-08 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi, buildroot; +Cc: linux-snps-arc Hi Shahab, On 15/06/2022 12:57, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > Building bpftool on Debian 11 (bullseye) with kernel v5.10 fails: > > -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- > $ make > . > . > . > CLANG pid_iter.bpf.o > skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:47:14: error: incomplete definition of type > 'struct bpf_perf_link' > perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); > . > . > . > skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c:49:30: error: no member named 'bpf_cookie' in > 'struct perf_event' > return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); > . > . > . > 10 errors generated. > make: *** [Makefile:176: pid_iter.bpf.o] Error 1 > ----------------------------------->8----------------------------------- > > To be clearer about the setup, there is a clang (11) installed on this > system. bpftool's build process enables "co-re" feature (Compile-Once, > Run-Everywhere) if the clang compiler is new enough to support > BTF_KIND_VAR [1]. When that happens, bpftool will bootstrap itself: > build/bootstrap/libbpf.a. This bootstrap part is about those *.bpf.c > programs and are only built by invoking clang [2], irrespective of the > compiler used to build the rest of the bpftool. To sum it up, to > reproduce the issue, all you need is having the "co-re" feature > enabled and a kernel that does not provide all the data structures > expected. > > There are changes in bpftool v6.8.0 that assumes the existence of > particular data structures in generated vmlinux.h that is obtained > from the host machine. See [3] for further details. This commit adds > a patch to revert that additional change in v6.8.0. > > There's a patch series pending to be submitted upstream [4]. Hopefully, > those will take care of the problem if they land in the next release. Unfortunately, bpftool has been bumped two times since then and it looks like those patches are still not included... > > [1] Checking for the clang support > https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/d4469819d1d639ae2354f3d2ddd10377f081a576/src/Makefile.feature#L12 > > [2] Using clang to bootstrap > https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/d4469819d1d639ae2354f3d2ddd10377f081a576/src/Makefile#L175 > > [3] Question about the problem > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u > > [4] Pending patch series > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-1-alobakin@pm.me/ It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to fix your issue? For the time being, I marked this as Changes Requested. If the upstream patches are not sufficient, please send a mail upstream (as a reply to that series) explaining the problem (again), and re-send this patch to Buildroot. If it does fix things, please send a mail upstream to ask to move the series forward (explaining the issue you have), and send a patch to Buildroot that adds the needed patches. Thanks! Regards, Arnout > > Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > --- > > Changelog: > v1: Initial submission > v2: Use a full fledged git patch for bpftool > v3: Fix the snafu that resulted in malformed patch file > v4: Reword the commit message to make it clearer > > .../0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch | 129 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > > diff --git a/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..6f9579bd23 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/package/bpftool/0002-revert-bpf_cookie-change.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ > +From d7c78d1e38cde73c85b491a833f0e6e3f0d62654 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > +From: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > +Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:12:21 +0200 > +Subject: [PATCH] Revert commit "bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output" > + > +Building bpftool on a Debian bullseye with clang-11 fails [1]. > +This patch reverts the offending commit [2]. If clang-11 is not > +installed, then the "co-re" feature of bpf will not be enabled > +and the issue remains dormant. > + > +[1] Building release 6.8.0 on Debian 11 > +https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/c47f732d-dba8-2c13-7c72-3a651bf72353@synopsys.com/t/#u > + > +[2] bpftool: Add bpf_cookie to link output > +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=cbdaf71f > + > +Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com> > +--- > + src/main.h | 2 -- > + src/pids.c | 8 -------- > + src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c | 22 ---------------------- > + src/skeleton/pid_iter.h | 2 -- > + 4 files changed, 34 deletions(-) > + > +diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h > +index aa99ffa..2f2b638 100644 > +--- a/src/main.h > ++++ b/src/main.h > +@@ -111,9 +111,7 @@ struct obj_ref { > + > + struct obj_refs { > + int ref_cnt; > +- bool has_bpf_cookie; > + struct obj_ref *refs; > +- __u64 bpf_cookie; > + }; > + > + struct btf; > +diff --git a/src/pids.c b/src/pids.c > +index e2d00d3..57f0d1b 100644 > +--- a/src/pids.c > ++++ b/src/pids.c > +@@ -78,8 +78,6 @@ static void add_ref(struct hashmap *map, struct pid_iter_entry *e) > + ref->pid = e->pid; > + memcpy(ref->comm, e->comm, sizeof(ref->comm)); > + refs->ref_cnt = 1; > +- refs->has_bpf_cookie = e->has_bpf_cookie; > +- refs->bpf_cookie = e->bpf_cookie; > + > + err = hashmap__append(map, u32_as_hash_field(e->id), refs); > + if (err) > +@@ -206,9 +204,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_json(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, > + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) > + break; > + > +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) > +- jsonw_lluint_field(json_writer, "bpf_cookie", refs->bpf_cookie); > +- > + jsonw_name(json_writer, "pids"); > + jsonw_start_array(json_writer); > + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { > +@@ -238,9 +233,6 @@ void emit_obj_refs_plain(struct hashmap *map, __u32 id, const char *prefix) > + if (refs->ref_cnt == 0) > + break; > + > +- if (refs->has_bpf_cookie) > +- printf("\n\tbpf_cookie %llu", (unsigned long long) refs->bpf_cookie); > +- > + printf("%s", prefix); > + for (i = 0; i < refs->ref_cnt; i++) { > + struct obj_ref *ref = &refs->refs[i]; > +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > +index eb05ea5..f70702f 100644 > +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.bpf.c > +@@ -38,17 +38,6 @@ static __always_inline __u32 get_obj_id(void *ent, enum bpf_obj_type type) > + } > + } > + > +-/* could be used only with BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT links */ > +-static __u64 get_bpf_cookie(struct bpf_link *link) > +-{ > +- struct bpf_perf_link *perf_link; > +- struct perf_event *event; > +- > +- perf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_perf_link, link); > +- event = BPF_CORE_READ(perf_link, perf_file, private_data); > +- return BPF_CORE_READ(event, bpf_cookie); > +-} > +- > + SEC("iter/task_file") > + int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) > + { > +@@ -80,19 +69,8 @@ int iter(struct bpf_iter__task_file *ctx) > + if (file->f_op != fops) > + return 0; > + > +- __builtin_memset(&e, 0, sizeof(e)); > + e.pid = task->tgid; > + e.id = get_obj_id(file->private_data, obj_type); > +- > +- if (obj_type == BPF_OBJ_LINK) { > +- struct bpf_link *link = (struct bpf_link *) file->private_data; > +- > +- if (BPF_CORE_READ(link, type) == BPF_LINK_TYPE_PERF_EVENT) { > +- e.has_bpf_cookie = true; > +- e.bpf_cookie = get_bpf_cookie(link); > +- } > +- } > +- > + bpf_probe_read_kernel_str(&e.comm, sizeof(e.comm), > + task->group_leader->comm); > + bpf_seq_write(ctx->meta->seq, &e, sizeof(e)); > +diff --git a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > +index bbb570d..5692cf2 100644 > +--- a/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > ++++ b/src/skeleton/pid_iter.h > +@@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ > + struct pid_iter_entry { > + __u32 id; > + int pid; > +- __u64 bpf_cookie; > +- bool has_bpf_cookie; > + char comm[16]; > + }; > + > +-- > +2.30.2 > + _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2023-02-08 16:36 ` Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2023-02-09 12:23 ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi @ 2023-02-09 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle Cc: buildroot, linux-snps-arc, Alexey Brodkin, Shahab Vahedi Hi Arnout, On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than > using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to > fix your issue? Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing. > For the time being, I marked this as Changes Requested. If the upstream > patches are not sufficient, please send a mail upstream (as a reply to that > series) explaining the problem (again), and re-send this patch to > Buildroot. If it does fix things, please send a mail upstream to ask to > move the series forward (explaining the issue you have), and send a patch > to Buildroot that adds the needed patches. They (re)confirmed the issue to me in the past [2] and are aware that its solution is missing from all the releases onward (see the first point of "Known bugs" in the release page [3]). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#rb9ce86e9f25b2d097b88d87af8ffdfa401d63c68 [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/b1a604e1-be09-ac0b-ff22-b194ae9ce886@isovalent.com/ [3] https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/releases -- Shahab _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2023-02-09 12:23 ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2023-02-09 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle Cc: linux-snps-arc, Alexey Brodkin, Shahab Vahedi, buildroot Hi Arnout, On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than > using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to > fix your issue? Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing. > For the time being, I marked this as Changes Requested. If the upstream > patches are not sufficient, please send a mail upstream (as a reply to that > series) explaining the problem (again), and re-send this patch to > Buildroot. If it does fix things, please send a mail upstream to ask to > move the series forward (explaining the issue you have), and send a patch > to Buildroot that adds the needed patches. They (re)confirmed the issue to me in the past [2] and are aware that its solution is missing from all the releases onward (see the first point of "Known bugs" in the release page [3]). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#rb9ce86e9f25b2d097b88d87af8ffdfa401d63c68 [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/b1a604e1-be09-ac0b-ff22-b194ae9ce886@isovalent.com/ [3] https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/releases -- Shahab _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2023-02-09 12:23 ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2023-02-09 20:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2023-02-09 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Alexey Brodkin, buildroot On 09/02/2023 13:23, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > Hi Arnout, > > On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> >> It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than >> using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to >> fix your issue? > > Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since > there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did I don't see anything in that thread about rework being needed, only some complaints about some mail gateway encrypting messages so they can't be read by some recipients... > not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal > and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing. The problem with your patch is that it is very difficult to decide if it should be kept or not when bumping the version. Plus, some people (or other packages) may rely on the feature that you remove. Regards, Arnout > >> For the time being, I marked this as Changes Requested. If the upstream >> patches are not sufficient, please send a mail upstream (as a reply to that >> series) explaining the problem (again), and re-send this patch to >> Buildroot. If it does fix things, please send a mail upstream to ask to >> move the series forward (explaining the issue you have), and send a patch >> to Buildroot that adds the needed patches. > > They (re)confirmed the issue to me in the past [2] and are aware that its > solution is missing from all the releases onward (see the first point of > "Known bugs" in the release page [3]). > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#rb9ce86e9f25b2d097b88d87af8ffdfa401d63c68 > > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/b1a604e1-be09-ac0b-ff22-b194ae9ce886@isovalent.com/ > > [3] > https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/releases > > -- > Shahab > > _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2023-02-09 20:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2023-02-09 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi; +Cc: buildroot, linux-snps-arc, Alexey Brodkin On 09/02/2023 13:23, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > Hi Arnout, > > On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> >> It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than >> using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to >> fix your issue? > > Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since > there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did I don't see anything in that thread about rework being needed, only some complaints about some mail gateway encrypting messages so they can't be read by some recipients... > not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal > and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing. The problem with your patch is that it is very difficult to decide if it should be kept or not when bumping the version. Plus, some people (or other packages) may rely on the feature that you remove. Regards, Arnout > >> For the time being, I marked this as Changes Requested. If the upstream >> patches are not sufficient, please send a mail upstream (as a reply to that >> series) explaining the problem (again), and re-send this patch to >> Buildroot. If it does fix things, please send a mail upstream to ask to >> move the series forward (explaining the issue you have), and send a patch >> to Buildroot that adds the needed patches. > > They (re)confirmed the issue to me in the past [2] and are aware that its > solution is missing from all the releases onward (see the first point of > "Known bugs" in the release page [3]). > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#rb9ce86e9f25b2d097b88d87af8ffdfa401d63c68 > > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/b1a604e1-be09-ac0b-ff22-b194ae9ce886@isovalent.com/ > > [3] > https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/releases > > -- > Shahab > > _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2023-02-09 20:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2023-02-10 9:17 ` Shahab Vahedi -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi via buildroot @ 2023-02-10 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle Cc: linux-snps-arc, Alexey Brodkin, Shahab Vahedi, buildroot On 2/9/23 21:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > On 09/02/2023 13:23, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >> >> On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>> >>> It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than >>> using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to >>> fix your issue? >> >> Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since >> there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did > > I don't see anything in that thread about rework being needed, only some > complaints about some mail gateway encrypting messages so they can't be > read by some recipients... See this [1] and the response here [2]. Having read it again, apparently it is not such a big deal. Alexander, the author, mentioned that he will redo that part in v3 of the patch the way David suggested. So either, I can make that change when submitting to Buildroot, or take it as it is. Your call. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m42db58567febf12040f6ba0478e1a6148c284c55 [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m293896646128262621c83e8c15c4d977f92ad0d2 >> not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal >> and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing. > > The problem with your patch is that it is very difficult to decide if it > should be kept or not when bumping the version. Plus, some people (or other > packages) may rely on the feature that you remove. I can try to apply that patch series on top of bpftool-v7.1.0-br1.tar.gz in buildroot. If it can be done fairly easily, I will submit it on a different thread. -- Shahab _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2023-02-10 9:17 ` Shahab Vahedi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Shahab Vahedi @ 2023-02-10 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnout Vandecappelle Cc: buildroot, linux-snps-arc, Alexey Brodkin, Shahab Vahedi On 2/9/23 21:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > On 09/02/2023 13:23, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >> >> On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>> >>> It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than >>> using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to >>> fix your issue? >> >> Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since >> there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did > > I don't see anything in that thread about rework being needed, only some > complaints about some mail gateway encrypting messages so they can't be > read by some recipients... See this [1] and the response here [2]. Having read it again, apparently it is not such a big deal. Alexander, the author, mentioned that he will redo that part in v3 of the patch the way David suggested. So either, I can make that change when submitting to Buildroot, or take it as it is. Your call. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m42db58567febf12040f6ba0478e1a6148c284c55 [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m293896646128262621c83e8c15c4d977f92ad0d2 >> not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal >> and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing. > > The problem with your patch is that it is very difficult to decide if it > should be kept or not when bumping the version. Plus, some people (or other > packages) may rely on the feature that you remove. I can try to apply that patch series on top of bpftool-v7.1.0-br1.tar.gz in buildroot. If it can be done fairly easily, I will submit it on a different thread. -- Shahab _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building 2023-02-10 9:17 ` Shahab Vahedi @ 2023-02-10 13:12 ` Arnout Vandecappelle -1 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2023-02-10 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi; +Cc: linux-snps-arc, Alexey Brodkin, buildroot On 10/02/2023 10:17, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > On 2/9/23 21:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> >> On 09/02/2023 13:23, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>> >>> On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>>> >>>> It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than >>>> using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to >>>> fix your issue? >>> >>> Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since >>> there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did >> >> I don't see anything in that thread about rework being needed, only some >> complaints about some mail gateway encrypting messages so they can't be >> read by some recipients... > See this [1] and the response here [2]. Having read it again, apparently it is Ah, but I guessed that that patch was not relevant for the issue you are facing. I had the impression only the first two or three patches of the series are relevant. > not such a big deal. Alexander, the author, mentioned that he will redo that > part in v3 of the patch the way David suggested. So either, I can make that > change when submitting to Buildroot, or take it as it is. Your call. > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m42db58567febf12040f6ba0478e1a6148c284c55 > > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m293896646128262621c83e8c15c4d977f92ad0d2 > >>> not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal >>> and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing. >> >> The problem with your patch is that it is very difficult to decide if it >> should be kept or not when bumping the version. Plus, some people (or other >> packages) may rely on the feature that you remove. > > I can try to apply that patch series on top of bpftool-v7.1.0-br1.tar.gz in > buildroot. If it can be done fairly easily, I will submit it on a different > thread. Thanks! Regards, Arnout _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building @ 2023-02-10 13:12 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2023-02-10 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahab Vahedi; +Cc: buildroot, linux-snps-arc, Alexey Brodkin On 10/02/2023 10:17, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > On 2/9/23 21:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> >> On 09/02/2023 13:23, Shahab Vahedi wrote: >>> >>> On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>>> >>>> It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than >>>> using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to >>>> fix your issue? >>> >>> Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since >>> there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did >> >> I don't see anything in that thread about rework being needed, only some >> complaints about some mail gateway encrypting messages so they can't be >> read by some recipients... > See this [1] and the response here [2]. Having read it again, apparently it is Ah, but I guessed that that patch was not relevant for the issue you are facing. I had the impression only the first two or three patches of the series are relevant. > not such a big deal. Alexander, the author, mentioned that he will redo that > part in v3 of the patch the way David suggested. So either, I can make that > change when submitting to Buildroot, or take it as it is. Your call. > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m42db58567febf12040f6ba0478e1a6148c284c55 > > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m293896646128262621c83e8c15c4d977f92ad0d2 > >>> not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal >>> and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing. >> >> The problem with your patch is that it is very difficult to decide if it >> should be kept or not when bumping the version. Plus, some people (or other >> packages) may rely on the feature that you remove. > > I can try to apply that patch series on top of bpftool-v7.1.0-br1.tar.gz in > buildroot. If it can be done fairly easily, I will submit it on a different > thread. Thanks! Regards, Arnout _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-02-10 13:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 43+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-06-13 21:30 [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2022-06-14 8:26 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2022-06-14 8:26 ` Shahab Vahedi 2022-06-14 9:31 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2022-06-14 9:31 ` Shahab Vahedi 2022-06-14 17:14 ` [Buildroot] " Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-06-14 17:14 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-06-14 17:27 ` [Buildroot] " Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-06-14 17:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-06-15 11:03 ` [Buildroot] " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2022-06-15 11:03 ` Shahab Vahedi 2022-06-15 11:10 ` [Buildroot] " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2022-06-15 11:10 ` Shahab Vahedi 2022-06-15 23:27 ` [Buildroot] " James Hilliard 2022-06-15 23:27 ` James Hilliard 2022-06-16 8:11 ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2022-06-16 8:11 ` Shahab Vahedi 2022-06-19 15:20 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-06-19 15:20 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-06-19 23:19 ` James Hilliard 2022-06-19 23:19 ` James Hilliard 2022-06-20 6:45 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-06-20 6:45 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-06-20 9:17 ` James Hilliard 2022-06-20 9:17 ` James Hilliard 2022-06-20 18:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-06-20 18:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2022-08-09 9:46 ` James Hilliard 2022-08-09 9:46 ` James Hilliard 2022-06-15 10:57 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 " Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2022-06-15 10:57 ` Shahab Vahedi 2022-06-24 14:21 ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2022-06-24 14:21 ` Shahab Vahedi 2023-02-08 16:36 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2023-02-08 16:36 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2023-02-09 12:23 ` Shahab Vahedi 2023-02-09 12:23 ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2023-02-09 20:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2023-02-09 20:27 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2023-02-10 9:17 ` Shahab Vahedi via buildroot 2023-02-10 9:17 ` Shahab Vahedi 2023-02-10 13:12 ` Arnout Vandecappelle 2023-02-10 13:12 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.