Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:15 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Ah, that is my mistake: I was getting dynamic libbpf symbols with this >> approach, but that was because I had the version of libbpf.so in my >> $LIBDIR that had the patch to expose the netlink APIs as versioned >> symbols; so it was just pulling in everything from the shared library. >> >> So what I was going for was exactly what you described above; but it >> seems that doesn't actually work. Too bad, and sorry for wasting your >> time on this :/ > > bpftool is currently tightly coupled with libbpf and very likely > in the future the dependency will be even tighter. > In that sense bpftool is an extension of libbpf and libbpf is an extension > of bpftool. > Andrii is working on set of patches to generate user space .c code > from bpf program. > bpftool will be generating the code that is specific for the version > bpftool and for > the version of libbpf. There will be compatibility layers as usual. > But in general the situation where a bug in libbpf is so criticial > that bpftool needs to repackaged is imo less likely than a bug in > bpftool that will require re-packaging of libbpf. > bpftool is quite special. It's not a typical user of libbpf. > The other way around is more correct. libbpf is a user of the code > that bpftool generates and both depend on each other. > perf on the other side is what typical user space app that uses > libbpf will look like. > I think keeping bpftool in the kernel while packaging libbpf > out of github was an oversight. > I think we need to mirror bpftool into github/libbpf as well > and make sure they stay together. The version of libbpf == version of bpftool. > Both should come from the same package and so on. > May be they can be two different packages but > upgrading one should trigger upgrade of another and vice versa. > I think one package would be easier though. > Thoughts? Yup, making bpftool explicitly the "libbpf command line interface" makes sense and would help clarify the relationship between the two. As Jiri said, we are already moving in that direction packaging-wise... -Toke
