On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 12:58 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 12:44 AM Jiri Benc <jbenc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:19:00 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > I'll just quote myself here for your convenience. > > > > Sorry, I missed your original email for some reason. > > > > > Submodule is a way that I know of to make this better for end users. > > > If there are other ways to pull this off with shared library use, I'm > > > all for it, it will save the security angle that distros are arguing > > > for. E.g., if distributions will always have the latest libbpf > > > available almost as soon as it's cut upstream *and* new iproute2 > > > versions enforce the latest libbpf when they are packaged/released, > > > then this might work equivalently for end users. If Linux distros > > > would be willing to do this faithfully and promptly, I have no > > > objections whatsoever. Because all that matters is BPF end user > > > experience, as Daniel explained above. > > > > That's basically what we already do, for both Fedora and RHEL. > > > > Of course, it follows the distro release cycle, i.e. no version > > upgrades - or very limited ones - during lifetime of a particular > > release. But that would not be different if libbpf was bundled in > > individual projects. > > Alright. Hopefully this would be sufficient in practice. I think bumping the minimal version of libbpf with every iproute2 release is necessary as well. Today iproute2-next should require 0.2.0. The cycle after it should be 0.3.0 and so on. This way at least some correlation between iproute2 and libbpf will be established. Otherwise it's a mess of versions and functionality from user point of view.
