From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@gmail.com>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev, kernel-team@fb.com,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, masahiroy@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2] samples/bpf: remove unnecessary -I flags from libbpf EXTRA_CFLAGS
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:00:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z06Qbsh7Elx7psRx@mini-arch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <af043dde50045c5fbce2564130b9b9105b12eeec.camel@gmail.com>
On 12/02, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-12-02 at 17:44 -0800, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-12-02 at 16:52 -0800, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > Naive question: why pass EXTRA_CFLAGS to libbpf at all? Can we drop it?
> > >
> > > This was added by the commit [0].
> > > As far as I understand, the idea is to pass the following flags:
> > >
> > > ifeq ($(ARCH), arm)
> > > # Strip all except -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ option needed to handle linux
> > > # headers when arm instruction set identification is requested.
> > > ARM_ARCH_SELECTOR := $(filter -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__%, $(KBUILD_CFLAGS))
> > > ...
> > > TPROGS_CFLAGS += $(ARM_ARCH_SELECTOR)
> > > endif
> > >
> > > ifeq ($(ARCH), mips)
> > > TPROGS_CFLAGS += -D__SANE_USERSPACE_TYPES__
> > > ...
> > > endif
> > >
> > > Not sure if these are still necessary.
> > >
> > > [0] commit d8ceae91e9f0 ("samples/bpf: Provide C/LDFLAGS to libbpf")
> > >
> >
> > But this means that I should include sysroot part in the COMMON_CFLAGS.
> > I'll get the arm cross-compilation environment and double check.
> >
>
> So, I tested build as follows:
> - setup a debian chroot for 'testing';
> - added gcc-arm-linux-gnueabihf toolchain and dependencies necessary
> for kernel build (as in [0]) + clang-18 + qemu-system-arm + qemu-user-static;
> - cross-compiled kernel for ARM inside that chroot:
> $ ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- make olddefconfig
> $ ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- make -j
> - prepared an ARM sysroot (again, debian 'testing'):
> $ debootstrap --arch armhf --variant=buildd testing \
> /some/dir/trixie-armhf http://deb.debian.org/debian
> (and installed libelf-dev inside chroot)
> - compiled samples with the following command:
> $ CLANG=clang-18 LLC=llc-18 OPT=opt-18 LLVM_DIS=llvm-dis-18 \
> LLVM_OBJCOPY=llvm-objcopy-18 LLVM_READELF=llvm-readelf-18 \
> ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- \
> SYSROOT=/some/dir/trixie-armhf/ \
> make M=samples/bpf
>
> [0] https://docs.kernel.org/bpf/s390.html
>
> The compilation finishes successfully with and without EXTRA_CFLAGS
> passed to libbpf build. When EXTRA_CFLAGS are passed, I don't see any
> -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__% flags passed to libbpf build.
>
> Still, I'm hesitant to remove this flag, I'd prefer to post a v3
> covering sysroot flag and be done with this. E.g. as below:
>
> --- 8< ----------------------------------------------------
> diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile
> index bcf103a4c14f..96a05e70ace3 100644
> --- a/samples/bpf/Makefile
> +++ b/samples/bpf/Makefile
> @@ -146,13 +146,14 @@ ifeq ($(ARCH), x86)
> BPF_EXTRA_CFLAGS += -fcf-protection
> endif
>
> -TPROGS_CFLAGS += -Wall -O2
> -TPROGS_CFLAGS += -Wmissing-prototypes
> -TPROGS_CFLAGS += -Wstrict-prototypes
> -TPROGS_CFLAGS += $(call try-run,\
> +COMMON_CFLAGS += -Wall -O2
> +COMMON_CFLAGS += -Wmissing-prototypes
> +COMMON_CFLAGS += -Wstrict-prototypes
> +COMMON_CFLAGS += $(call try-run,\
> printf "int main() { return 0; }" |\
> $(CC) -Werror -fsanitize=bounds -x c - -o "$$TMP",-fsanitize=bounds,)
>
> +TPROGS_CFLAGS += $(COMMON_CFLAGS)
> TPROGS_CFLAGS += -I$(objtree)/usr/include
> TPROGS_CFLAGS += -I$(srctree)/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
> TPROGS_CFLAGS += -I$(LIBBPF_INCLUDE)
> @@ -162,7 +163,7 @@ TPROGS_CFLAGS += -I$(srctree)/tools/lib
> TPROGS_CFLAGS += -DHAVE_ATTR_TEST=0
>
> ifdef SYSROOT
> -TPROGS_CFLAGS += --sysroot=$(SYSROOT)
> +COMMON_CFLAGS += --sysroot=$(SYSROOT)
> TPROGS_LDFLAGS := -L$(SYSROOT)/usr/lib
> endif
>
> @@ -229,7 +230,7 @@ clean:
>
> $(LIBBPF): $(wildcard $(LIBBPF_SRC)/*.[ch] $(LIBBPF_SRC)/Makefile) | $(LIBBPF_OUTPUT)
> # Fix up variables inherited from Kbuild that tools/ build system won't like
> - $(MAKE) -C $(LIBBPF_SRC) RM='rm -rf' EXTRA_CFLAGS="$(TPROGS_CFLAGS)" \
> + $(MAKE) -C $(LIBBPF_SRC) RM='rm -rf' EXTRA_CFLAGS="$(COMMON_CFLAGS)" \
> LDFLAGS="$(TPROGS_LDFLAGS)" srctree=$(BPF_SAMPLES_PATH)/../../ \
> O= OUTPUT=$(LIBBPF_OUTPUT)/ DESTDIR=$(LIBBPF_DESTDIR) prefix= \
> $@ install_headers
> ---------------------------------------------------- >8 ---
>
> (and maybe peek a better name for COMMON_CFLAGS).
>
Agreed, let's go with what you have (especially since you've tested it).
The samples are mostly deprecated / in maintenance mode anyway.
Feel free to slap:
Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-03 5:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-02 23:47 [PATCH bpf v2] samples/bpf: remove unnecessary -I flags from libbpf EXTRA_CFLAGS Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-03 0:23 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2024-12-03 0:52 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-03 1:44 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-03 4:50 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-03 5:00 ` Stanislav Fomichev [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Z06Qbsh7Elx7psRx@mini-arch \
--to=stfomichev@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox