Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: Support private stack for bpf progs

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 09:54 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:

[...]

> > For "0156b148b5b4" I opted to do a popen() call and execute bpftool process,
> > an alternative would be to:
> > a. either link tools/bpf/bpftool/jit_disasm.c as a part of the
> >     test_progs executable;
> > b. call libbfd (binutils dis-assembler) directly from the bpftool.
> > 
> > Currently bpftool can use two dis-assemblers: libbfd and llvm library,
> > depending on the build environment. For CI builds libbfd is used.
> > I don't know if llvm and libbfd always produce same output for
> > identical binary code. Imo, if people are Ok with adding libbfd
> > dependency to test_progs, option (b) is the best. If folks on the
> > mailing list agree with this, I can work on updating the patches.
> 
> I think this is a good idea in the long time.
> Let me try with your patch.

What do you think about direct dependency on libbfd for test_progs,
should I update the disassembly function or popen'ing bpftool is fine?
I'd prefer libbfd dependency, tbh.

[...]