From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0A6C433F5 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:45:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AD06124D for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:45:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230318AbhKJIsj (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2021 03:48:39 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:50503 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230393AbhKJIsi (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2021 03:48:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1636533951; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=8Ho5EXRGYh8IyL3hxtihj/uWe5GBsevOzHdhzQOn+II=; b=bRkPSp5HZtOTVKxD98gBWy/0c3sF9zf5+oNNOVnZnA5FOMjs4gf3UxWTGJZN/0ECir2Xal xIZxoYpOB7IECCzqa8gcUX9clQNUZ7WEguqolyTJNs9iRgxOOLmYeh+iiIRwnOfnwO73XK fHOW39GilXq0FV/tlgvPUkSOFJ/yIQY= Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-100-YotPOgk6NACsyukriNWHwA-1; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 03:45:50 -0500 X-MC-Unique: YotPOgk6NACsyukriNWHwA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id j193-20020a1c23ca000000b003306ae8bfb7so792144wmj.7 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 00:45:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=8Ho5EXRGYh8IyL3hxtihj/uWe5GBsevOzHdhzQOn+II=; b=0NnwNHeFNSB69e9e5i/OOP/exAXiFr1jqJKY8wyMrzKXkj5/tpYYpnQWJrLf1SZDhU lUMzSX+Wfh+fTMgmPQrWsqy4V5T6wC9yvvbex1PzV1eUI3PGY6rnBYGlS7+AWhpb5fIo 1ZjUC+/OH61aVdu+tIHI2k3DCkPMC13sxEBxo2tEsklhADY6AVRqaRvCIAx1O3v2yTWF TdxWVueZJgKwfypZYHr8/uGJYThyi8DBYYegvbhgMvSz8PCvk3Vyy06BaPYfx5J5hoiQ HWURBPWdwsk7oYQmlDvrNdIYa+mjLaxw2KcAzlUUs6VsEH5NfMLxzEpEBowIp+7k2ZTs 5HCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5303BB/B7TMaT0mhIstBz9XW8Q9Ak85jE8YEyf8jvf14tWUXeytL FFbuPgD4HC/Dg/O83rFzDvvBzFamXJYhsWl3MQnQIzwfpunhecc66IFiQJ5hmMumn1e0psjlP6j 9V6j/Cbav1r5PF2owVQrmAViZqeeWZw== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c351:: with SMTP id l17mr14797992wmj.120.1636533948854; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 00:45:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzwGlCYdC0IIag21+f5cwGkK7+HvhjYZ6HSS2si7iy6/HgYKKEBJOCk3lHgQqzHxshIq23W1A== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c351:: with SMTP id l17mr14797972wmj.120.1636533948663; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 00:45:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from krava (nat-pool-brq-u.redhat.com. [213.175.37.12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l4sm21365520wrv.94.2021.11.10.00.45.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 10 Nov 2021 00:45:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:45:47 +0100 From: Jiri Olsa To: Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Ian Rogers , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , lkml , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Mark Rutland , Namhyung Kim , Alexander Shishkin , Michael Petlan , "linux-perf-use." , Andrii Nakryiko Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf tools: Add more weak libbpf functions Message-ID: References: <20211109140707.1689940-1-jolsa@kernel.org> <20211109140707.1689940-2-jolsa@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 03:33:04PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 10:50 AM Ian Rogers wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 6:07 AM Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > > We hit the window where perf uses libbpf functions, that did not > > > make it to the official libbpf release yet and it's breaking perf > > > build with dynamicly linked libbpf. > > > > > > Fixing this by providing the new interface as weak functions which > > > calls the original libbpf functions. Fortunatelly the changes were > > > just renames. > > > > Could we just provide these functions behind a libbpf version #if ? > > Weak symbols break things in subtle ways, under certain circumstances > > the weak symbol is preferred over the strong due to lazy object file > > resolution: > > https://maskray.me/blog/2021-06-20-symbol-processing#archive-processing > > This bit me last week, but in general you get away with it as the lazy > > object file will get processed in an archive exposing the strong > > symbol. With an #if you either get a linker error for 2 definitions or > > 0 definitions, and it's clear what is broken. > > > > In the past we had problems due to constant propagation from weak > > const variables, where #if was the solution: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191001003623.255186-1-irogers@google.com/ > > > > There was some recent conversation on libbpf version for pahole here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAP-5=fUc3LtU0WYg-Py9Jf+9picaWHJdSw=sdOMA54uY3p1pdw@mail.gmail.com/T/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211021183330.460681-1-irogers@google.com/ > > > > Thanks, > > Ian > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa > > > --- > > > tools/perf/util/bpf-event.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf-event.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf-event.c > > > index 4d3b4cdce176..ceb96360fd12 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf-event.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf-event.c > > > @@ -33,6 +33,33 @@ struct btf * __weak btf__load_from_kernel_by_id(__u32 id) > > > return err ? ERR_PTR(err) : btf; > > > } > > > > > > +struct bpf_program * __weak > > > +bpf_object__next_program(const struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf_program *prev) > > > +{ > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations" > > > + return bpf_program__next(prev, obj); > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop > > > +} > > > + > > > +struct bpf_map * __weak > > > +bpf_object__next_map(const struct bpf_object *obj, const struct bpf_map *prev) > > > +{ > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations" > > > + return bpf_map__next(prev, obj); > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop > > > +} > > > + > > > +const void * __weak > > > +btf__raw_data(const struct btf *btf_ro, __u32 *size) > > > +{ > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations" > > > + return btf__get_raw_data(btf_ro, size); > > you can still use old variants for the time being, if you want. Were > new APIs used accidentally? Libbpf maintains a guarantee that if some > API is deprecated in favor of the new one, there will be at least one > full libbpf release where both APIs are available and not marked as > deprecated. we could use old api instead of btf__raw_data, we could just revert the perf change but bpf_object__next_program and bpf_object__next_map are used through macros like bpf_object__for_each_map or bpf_object__for_each_program, so we'd need to define 'old versions' of them jirka > > > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop > > > +} > > > + > > > static int snprintf_hex(char *buf, size_t size, unsigned char *data, size_t len) > > > { > > > int ret = 0; > > > -- > > > 2.31.1 > > > >