Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 11/28/19 5:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Currently we support only static linking with kernel's libbpf
>> (tools/lib/bpf). This patch adds LIBBPF_DYNAMIC compile variable
>> that triggers libbpf detection and bpf dynamic linking:
>>
>> $ make -C tools/bpf/bpftool make LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=1
>>
>> If libbpf is not installed, build (with LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=1) stops with:
>>
>> $ make -C tools/bpf/bpftool LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=1
>> Auto-detecting system features:
>> ... libbfd: [ on ]
>> ... disassembler-four-args: [ on ]
>> ... zlib: [ on ]
>> ... libbpf: [ OFF ]
>>
>> Makefile:102: *** Error: No libbpf devel library found, please install libbpf-devel or libbpf-dev.
>>
>> Adding LIBBPF_DIR compile variable to allow linking with
>> libbpf installed into specific directory:
>>
>> $ make -C tools/lib/bpf/ prefix=/tmp/libbpf/ install_lib install_headers
>> $ make -C tools/bpf/bpftool/ LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=1 LIBBPF_DIR=/tmp/libbpf/
>>
>> It might be needed to clean build tree first because features
>> framework does not detect the change properly:
>>
>> $ make -C tools/build/feature clean
>> $ make -C tools/bpf/bpftool/ clean
>>
>> Since bpftool uses bits of libbpf that are not exported as public API in
>> the .so version, we also pass in libbpf.a to the linker, which allows it to
>> pick up the private functions from the static library without having to
>> expose them as ABI.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v3:
>> - Keep $(LIBBPF) in $LIBS, and just add -lbpf on top
>> - Fix typo in error message
>> v2:
>> - Pass .a file to linker when dynamically linking, so bpftool can use
>> private functions from libbpf without exposing them as API.
>>
>> tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile
>> index 39bc6f0f4f0b..15052dcaa39b 100644
>> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile
>> @@ -1,6 +1,15 @@
>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +# LIBBPF_DYNAMIC to enable libbpf dynamic linking.
>> +
>> include ../../scripts/Makefile.include
>> include ../../scripts/utilities.mak
>> +include ../../scripts/Makefile.arch
>> +
>> +ifeq ($(LP64), 1)
>> + libdir_relative = lib64
>> +else
>> + libdir_relative = lib
>> +endif
>>
>> ifeq ($(srctree),)
>> srctree := $(patsubst %/,%,$(dir $(CURDIR)))
>> @@ -63,6 +72,19 @@ RM ?= rm -f
>> FEATURE_USER = .bpftool
>> FEATURE_TESTS = libbfd disassembler-four-args reallocarray zlib
>> FEATURE_DISPLAY = libbfd disassembler-four-args zlib
>> +ifdef LIBBPF_DYNAMIC
>> + FEATURE_TESTS += libbpf
>> + FEATURE_DISPLAY += libbpf
>> +
>> + # for linking with debug library run:
>> + # make LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=1 LIBBPF_DIR=/opt/libbpf
>
> The Makefile already has BPF_DIR which points right now to
> '$(srctree)/tools/lib/bpf/' and LIBBPF_PATH for the final one and
> where $(LIBBPF_PATH)libbpf.a is expected to reside. Can't we improve
> the Makefile to reuse and work with these instead of adding yet
> another LIBBPF_DIR var which makes future changes in this area more
> confusing? The libbpf build spills out libbpf.{a,so*} by default
> anyway.
I see what you mean; however, LIBBPF_DIR is meant to be specifically an
override for the dynamic library, not just the path to libbpf.
Would it be less confusing to overload the LIBBPF_DYNAMIC variable
instead? I.e.,
make LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=1
would dynamically link against the libbpf installed in the system, but
make LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=/opt/libbpf
would override that and link against whatever is in /opt/libbpf instead?
WDYT?
> Was wondering whether we could drop LIBBPF_DYNAMIC altogether and have
> some sort of auto detection, but given for perf the `make
> LIBBPF_DYNAMIC=1` option was just applied to perf tree it's probably
> better to stay consistent plus static linking would stay as-is for
> preferred method for bpftool, so that part seems fine.
When adding LIBBPF_DYNAMIC in a packaging script, we *want* the build to
fail if it doesn't work, instead of just silently falling back to a
statically linked version. Also, for something in the kernel tree like
bpftool, I think it makes more sense to default to the in-tree version
and make dynamic linking explicitly opt-in.
>> + ifdef LIBBPF_DIR
>> + LIBBPF_CFLAGS := -I$(LIBBPF_DIR)/include
>> + LIBBPF_LDFLAGS := -L$(LIBBPF_DIR)/$(libdir_relative)
>> + FEATURE_CHECK_CFLAGS-libbpf := $(LIBBPF_CFLAGS)
>> + FEATURE_CHECK_LDFLAGS-libbpf := $(LIBBPF_LDFLAGS)
>> + endif
>> +endif
>>
>> check_feat := 1
>> NON_CHECK_FEAT_TARGETS := clean uninstall doc doc-clean doc-install doc-uninstall
>> @@ -88,6 +110,18 @@ ifeq ($(feature-reallocarray), 0)
>> CFLAGS += -DCOMPAT_NEED_REALLOCARRAY
>> endif
>>
>> +ifdef LIBBPF_DYNAMIC
>> + ifeq ($(feature-libbpf), 1)
>> + # bpftool uses non-exported functions from libbpf, so just add the dynamic
>> + # version of libbpf and let the linker figure it out
>> + LIBS := -lbpf $(LIBS)
>
> Seems okay as a workaround for bpftool and avoids getting into the
> realm of declaring libbpf as another half-baked netlink library if
> we'd have exposed these. Ideally the netlink symbols shouldn't be
> needed at all from libbpf, but I presume the rationale back then was
> that given it's used internally in libbpf for some of the APIs and was
> needed in bpftool's net subcommand as well later on, it avoided
> duplicating the code given statically linked and both are in-tree
> anyway.
Yeah, I do think it's a little odd that bpftool is using "private" parts
of libbpf, but since we can solve it like this I think that is OK.
-Toke
