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

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

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes:

> On 8/22/19 3:38 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes:
>>> On 8/22/19 2:04 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes:
>>>>> On 8/22/19 12:43 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>>>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes:
>>>>>>> On 8/20/19 1:47 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>>>>>> This adds a configure check for libbpf and renames functions to allow
>>>>>>>> lib/bpf.c to be compiled with it present. This makes it possible to
>>>>>>>> port functionality piecemeal to use libbpf.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>      configure          | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>      include/bpf_util.h |  6 +++---
>>>>>>>>      ip/ipvrf.c         |  4 ++--
>>>>>>>>      lib/bpf.c          | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>>>>>      4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>>>>>>>> index 45fcffb6..5a89ee9f 100755
>>>>>>>> --- a/configure
>>>>>>>> +++ b/configure
>>>>>>>> @@ -238,6 +238,19 @@ check_elf()
>>>>>>>>          fi
>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>> +check_libbpf()
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +    if ${PKG_CONFIG} libbpf --exists; then
>>>>>>>> +	echo "HAVE_LIBBPF:=y" >>$CONFIG
>>>>>>>> +	echo "yes"
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +	echo 'CFLAGS += -DHAVE_LIBBPF' `${PKG_CONFIG} libbpf --cflags` >> $CONFIG
>>>>>>>> +	echo 'LDLIBS += ' `${PKG_CONFIG} libbpf --libs` >>$CONFIG
>>>>>>>> +    else
>>>>>>>> +	echo "no"
>>>>>>>> +    fi
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>      check_selinux()
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More of an implementation detail at this point in time, but want to
>>>>>>> make sure this doesn't get missed along the way: as discussed at
>>>>>>> bpfconf [0] best for iproute2 to handle libbpf support would be the
>>>>>>> same way of integration as pahole does, that is, to integrate it via
>>>>>>> submodule [1] to allow kernel and libbpf features to be in sync with
>>>>>>> iproute2 releases and therefore easily consume extensions we're adding
>>>>>>> to libbpf to aide iproute2 integration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can sorta see the point wrt keeping in sync with kernel features. But
>>>>>> how will this work with distros that package libbpf as a regular
>>>>>> library? Have you guys given up on regular library symbol versioning for
>>>>>> libbpf?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all, and I hope you know that. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Good! Didn't really expect you had, just checking ;)
>>>>
>>>>> The reason I added lib/bpf.c integration into iproute2 directly back
>>>>> then was exactly such that users can start consuming BPF for tc and
>>>>> XDP via iproute2 /everywhere/ with only a simple libelf dependency
>>>>> which is also available on all distros since pretty much forever. If
>>>>> it was an external library, we could have waited till hell freezes
>>>>> over and initial distro adoption would have pretty much taken forever:
>>>>> to pick one random example here wrt the pace of some downstream
>>>>> distros [0]. The main rationale is pretty much the same as with added
>>>>> kernel features that land complementary iproute2 patches for that
>>>>> kernel release and as libbpf is developed alongside it is reasonable
>>>>> to guarantee user expectations that iproute2 released for kernel
>>>>> version x can make use of BPF features added to kernel x with same
>>>>> loader support from x.
>>>>
>>>> Well, for iproute2 I would expect this to be solved by version
>>>> dependencies. I.e. iproute2 version X would depend on libbpf version Y+
>>>> (like, I dunno, the version of libbpf included in the same kernel source
>>>> tree as the kernel version iproute2 is targeting? :)).
>>>
>>> This sounds nice in theory, but from what I've seen major (!) distros
>>> already seem to have a hard time releasing kernel x along with iproute2
>>> package x, concrete example was that distro kernel was on 4.13 and its
>>> official iproute2 package on 4.9,
>> 
>> If the iproute2 package is not being updated at all I don't really see
>> how it would make any difference whether libbpf is vendored or not? :)
>> 
>>> adding yet another variable that needs to be in sync with kernel is
>>> simply impractical especially for a _core_ package like iproute2 that
>>> should have as little dependencies as possible. I also don't want to
>>> make a bet on whether libbpf will be available on every distro that
>>> also ships iproute2. Hence approach that pahole (and also bcc by the
>>> way) takes is most reasonable to have the best user experience.
>> 
>> Most users are going to get iproute2 from their distro packages anyway,
>> so if distros are incompetent at packaging, my bet is that you're going
>> to run into issues one way or another.
>> 
>> But OK, if you think it is easier to work around bad distros by
>> vendoring, you guys are the maintainers, so that's up to you. But can we
>> at least put in the version dependency and let the build system pick up
>> a system libbpf if it exists and is compatible? That way distros that
>> *are* competent can still link it dynamically...
>
> Yeah that would be fine by me to use this as a fallback, and I think that
> iproute2's configure script should be able to easily handle this
> situation.

Cool, I can live with that :)

-Toke