From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE6FE263F30; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 01:56:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763603816; cv=none; b=ByTV7KyZWXGrMe7xs5yvNt0LHlZPIj6+g+5Gc+SV5sGcrnRv9WpkvCblmTluaWXHdxyskYXxzmmzbQRfzFIGltYbiGILxNBxcETka14PdhfuRkTxHnVSMfihzmMHO7n2rHIauQ/2nYTrsHAIARsBpl3zosLF9ikjx4ZoH5WrSOU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763603816; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RIzky2Ct4NDFJrpkrSbp3ztWcruyC/Diqy/bvTOKXZ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mPAGHRoz1Mawm/iY92LxHs2uUIxIGhZYJDoHx4BQVSMpu64LAC28Fnn9KHsf3M7WBxSdx55C2vhUaXxU041rKyXYuUoQx2yp1Tbg7HGgqudT8chu9iwnyci6W8vSfBa4JzD40NddRu9kF15lewqeGMkiIU0bt/BbPfpQ1LwI4Ho= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=K7GXIVIn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="K7GXIVIn" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1C42C113D0; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 01:56:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1763603815; bh=RIzky2Ct4NDFJrpkrSbp3ztWcruyC/Diqy/bvTOKXZ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=K7GXIVInzpdgM+kUNlGfK5V46/wJmmWTc5zeiBevo61EwgOOKnamJ08/1XisRcYzh ZuxEZyiwODeR8rUfc101v0ONLEGP1pOfBx9Pewi6GpnPtqkDzKBIDyEVBowk5GmQ1K SJ+pMc6l9TkZaiTlbdjzQ74PNYSNMJuSz225gSPceZ4LBm8S3cjzJywwu/7EQ27bkZ XO8VIz8hRz/nyqTEODx2BZMn383hi6JyvQcOKM+RaXiCOeoKuEaB8wsncxEiU9LaJA auqtJcfu/G6koD1kRBb7X2C0hRUnMEwZdicjyy/lwjBtH3x1YLSgMZ7RgrpfW+uiJm nOfy+4og3EfnQ== Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:56:53 -0800 From: Namhyung Kim To: Alan Maguire Cc: Quentin Monnet , KP Singh , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] bpftool: Build failure due to opensslv.h Message-ID: References: <2cb226f8-a67c-4bdb-8c59-507c99a46bab@kernel.org> <7c86f05f-2ba3-4f63-8d63-49a3b3370360@oracle.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7c86f05f-2ba3-4f63-8d63-49a3b3370360@oracle.com> Hello, On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 10:20:22AM +0000, Alan Maguire wrote: > On 28/10/2025 09:05, Quentin Monnet wrote: > > 2025-10-27 11:27 UTC-0700 ~ Namhyung Kim > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 11:41:01AM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote: > >>> 2025-10-26 21:01 UTC-0700 ~ Namhyung Kim > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> I'm seeing a build failure like below in Fedora 40 and others. I'm not > >>>> sure if it's reported already but it failed to build perf tools due to > >>>> errors in the bootstrap bpftool. > >>>> > >>>> CC /build/util/bpf_skel/.tmp/bootstrap/sign.o > >>>> sign.c:16:10: fatal error: openssl/opensslv.h: No such file or directory > >>>> 16 | #include > >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> compilation terminated. > >>>> make[3]: *** [Makefile:256: /build/util/bpf_skel/.tmp/bootstrap/sign.o] Error 1 > >>>> make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > >>>> make[2]: *** [Makefile.perf:1213: /build/util/bpf_skel/.tmp/bootstrap/bpftool] Error 2 > >>>> make[1]: *** [Makefile.perf:289: sub-make] Error 2 > >>>> make: *** [Makefile:76: all] Error 2 > >>>> > >>>> I think it's from the recent signing change. I'm not familiar with > >>>> openssl but I guess there's a proper feature check for it. Is this a > >>>> known issue? > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Namhyung, > >> > >> Hello! > >> > >>> > >>> This looks related to the program signing change indeed, commit > >>> 40863f4d6ef2 ("bpftool: Add support for signing BPF programs") > >>> introduced a dependency on OpenSSL's development headers for bpftool. > >>> It's not gated behind a feature check. On Fedora, I think the headers > >>> come with openssl-devel, do you have this package installed? > >> > >> No I don't, but I guess it should be able to build on such systems. Or > >> is it required for bpftool? Anyway I feel like it should have a feature > >> check and appropriate error messages. > >> > > > > +Cc KP > > > > We usually have feature checks when optional features bring in new > > dependencies for bpftool, but we haven't discussed it this time. My > > understanding was that program signing is important enough that it > > should always be present in newer versions of bpftool, making OpenSSL > > one of the required dependencies going forward. > > > > We don't currently have feature checks to tell when required > > dependencies are missing for bpftool (it's just the build failing, in > > that case). I know perf does a great job at it, we could look into it > > for bpftool, too. > > > > One issue here is that some distros package openssl v3 such that the > #include files are in /usr/include/openssl3 and libraries in > /usr/lib64/openssl3 so that older versions can co-exist. Maybe we could > figure out a feature test that handles that too? What's the state of this? Is the fix in the bpf tree now? Thanks, Namhyung