On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 7:47 AM David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/29/20 9:11 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote: > > This series converts iproute2 to use libbpf for loading and attaching > > BPF programs when it is available. This means that iproute2 will > > correctly process BTF information and support the new-style BTF-defined > > maps, while keeping compatibility with the old internal map definition > > syntax. > > > > This is achieved by checking for libbpf at './configure' time, and using > > it if available. By default the system libbpf will be used, but static > > linking against a custom libbpf version can be achieved by passing > > LIBBPF_DIR to configure. FORCE_LIBBPF can be set to force configure to > > abort if no suitable libbpf is found (useful for automatic packaging > > that wants to enforce the dependency). > > > > The old iproute2 bpf code is kept and will be used if no suitable libbpf > > is available. When using libbpf, wrapper code ensures that iproute2 will > > still understand the old map definition format, including populating > > map-in-map and tail call maps before load. > > > > The examples in bpf/examples are kept, and a separate set of examples > > are added with BTF-based map definitions for those examples where this > > is possible (libbpf doesn't currently support declaratively populating > > tail call maps). > > > > At last, Thanks a lot for Toke's help on this patch set. > > > > In regards to comments from v2 of the series: > > iproute2 is a stable, production package that requires minimal support > from external libraries. The external packages it does require are also > stable with few to no relevant changes. > > bpf and libbpf on the other hand are under active development and > rapidly changing month over month. The git submodule approach has its > conveniences for rapid development but is inappropriate for a package > like iproute2 and will not be considered. It's ok to not consider that, really. I'm trying to understand what's so bad about the submodule approach, not convince you (anymore) to use libbpf through submodule. And the submodule is not for rapid development, it's mainly for guaranteed libbpf features and version, and simplicity of iproute2 code when using libbpf. But I don't think I got a real answer as to what's the exact reason against the submodule. Like what "inappropriate" even means in this case? Jesper's security argument so far was the only objective criteria, as far as I can tell. > > To explicitly state what I think should be obvious to any experienced > Linux user, iproute2 code should always compile and work *without > functionality loss* on LTS versions N and N-1 of well known OS’es with > LTS releases (e.g., Debian, Ubuntu, RHEL). Meaning iproute2 will compile > and work with the external dependencies as they exist in that OS version. I love the appeal to obviousness and "experienced Linux user" ;) But I also see that using libbpf through submodule gives iproute2 exact control over which version of libbpf is being used. And that does not depend at all on any specific Linux distribution, its version, LTS vs non-LTS, etc. iproute2 will just work the same across all of them. So matches your stated goals very directly and explicitly. > > I believe there are more than enough established compatibility and > library version checks to find the middle ground to integrate new > features requiring new versions of libbpf while maintaining stability > and compatibility with older releases. The biannual releases of Ubuntu > and Fedora serve as testing grounds for integrating new features > requiring a newer version of libbpf while continuing to work with > released versions of libbpf. It appears Debian Bullseye will also fall > into this category. Beyond just more unnecessary complexity in iproute2 library to accommodate older libbpf versions, users basically will need to pay closer attention not just to which version of iproute2 they have, but also which version of libbpf is installed on their system. Which is ok, but an unnecessary burden, IMO. By controlling the libbpf version through the submodule, it would be simple to say: "iproute2 vX uses libbpf vY with features Z1, Z2, Z3". Then the user would just know what to expect from iproute2 and its BPF support. And iproute2 code base won't have to do as much feature detection and condition compilation tricks. That's what I don't understand, why settle for the lowest common denominator of libbpf versions across a wide range of systems, when you can take control and develop against a well-known version of libbpf. I get security upgrades angle (even if I don't rank it higher than simplicity). But I don't get the ideal behind a blanket statement "libbpf through submodule is inappropriate". > > Finally, bpf-based features in iproute2 will only be committed once > relevant support exists in a released version of libbpf (ie., the github > version, not just commits to the in-kernel tree version). Patches can > and should be sent for review based on testing with the in-kernel tree > version of libbpf, but I will not commit them until the library has been > released. Makes sense. And the submodule approach gives you a great deal of control and flexibility in this case. For testing, it's easy to use either Github or even in-kernel sources (with a bit of symlinking, though). But for upstreaming the submodule should only reference a released tag from Github repo. Again, everything seems to work out, no? > > Thanks for working on this, Hangbin. It is right direction in the long term.
