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 E73D532D7E6; Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:19:58 +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=1765866000; cv=none; b=E43nFLBbOxNqh0TiXviLRgCeOlMiZih3dJTl1boPYH5j47F7oPAHOszBxG/FxB01eYaNlHlP+WMLNCmEyAsyJlTevYDeDpIQG3BP3VFL+oT1P8hbbxBpfk85bAnEcZauXjlq2gVUNz9n3vZX7Yr/bE7NNjcJ0ilAjyCyekgvwlI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765866000; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jcEEYLZM+Ahx6ncXaYATQIK3U9/f/6urv5INm84E1XE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tSfYjLOT2qOb+fUyUwHgOgno4IB55C+SYBslIHVJMuLaINEN/8t5auWtFLPlihpumuwMuP9RLLHg7kygdu3obqbxOK6knKyvCGGz21W0kvKsHtYCPsFr9ObMg6v9TXC7GLz5k5aomm3diOO6NUcrq2sRXvr7uMRgic1T8bT9qDI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Adcbu32Z; 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="Adcbu32Z" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76CEFC4CEF1; Tue, 16 Dec 2025 06:19:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1765865997; bh=jcEEYLZM+Ahx6ncXaYATQIK3U9/f/6urv5INm84E1XE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Adcbu32ZsNBcAwhR6eMNWNwTQvZYGyLvz1jjJqksdcWe8kF7/2cutbfQ/+qT4fbFZ t+7hxWzMBuK7bd/vLGpUHLIcum4ak5X/UVb/MML8V47Hj3Io0Pi6a/AGYPdhAxSe7Q 4o8zhuGdgBr3tupLNxQsThVcmD9l3sQM052Sk7VpvrSJjZPd4K0LsoKg1A0woIJdcj qYmBeEnEKOu/qQDm6SpNbNlIpXk9W3XTj/3WKKKNRdAoyYVRxqH8f7d18Wh9DdUlzW NUJxZ9EBozoBgFGkQ6LU/JyLZ4IO46oePDJso5fxB/AgHw4IWRU5YS5tnQgY68OG2h qBJmEtBqOAptw== Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 22:19:56 -0800 From: Namhyung Kim To: Quentin Monnet Cc: Ian Rogers , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , bpf@vger.kernel.org, James Clark , Jiri Olsa , Adrian Hunter , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , LKML , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, KP Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools/build: Add a feature test for libopenssl Message-ID: References: <20251203232924.1119206-1-namhyung@kernel.org> <4e7f40fc-114c-4786-86f7-532dce6cb04c@kernel.org> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4e7f40fc-114c-4786-86f7-532dce6cb04c@kernel.org> Hello, On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 10:28:03AM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote: > 2025-12-04 22:27 UTC-0800 ~ Ian Rogers > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 3:52 PM Namhyung Kim wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 01:16:54PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > >>> On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 04:34:56PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 3:29 PM Namhyung Kim wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> It's used by bpftool and the kernel build. Let's add a feature test so > >>>>> that perf can decide what to do based on the availability. > >>>> > >>>> It seems strange to add a feature test that bpftool is missing and > >>>> then use it only in the perf build. The signing of bpf programs isn't > >>> > >>> It is strange indeed, I agree that since we don't use BPF signing at > >>> this point in the perf BPf skels, then we could just bootstrap a bpftool > >>> without such feature and continue building the existing features. > >>> > >>> Adding the bpftool maintainer to the CC list, Quentin? > >> > >> I've already talked to Quentin and they want libopenssl as a > >> requirement. > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/e44f70bf-8f50-4a4b-97b8-eaf988aabced@kernel.org/ > > > > You can have libopenssl as a requirement and have a bootstrap bpftool > > that doesn't require it, as the bootstrap version only provides > > minimal features typically to just build bpftool. You can also have > > libopenssl as a requirement and have a feature test that fails in the > > bpftool build saying you are missing a requirement. Having the perf > > build detect that a feature for the bpftool dependency is missing is > > fine as we can then recommend installing bpftool or the missing > > dependency, but doing this without bpftool also doing something just > > seems inconsistent. > > > > Thanks, > > Ian > > > From bpftool's perspective, it doesn't really make sense to skip the > OpenSSL dependency for the bootstrap version, given that we want to ship > the main binary with the signing feature: so you could build a bootstrap > version without signing, but you won't be able to use it to build the > final binary because, well, you miss a required dependency. > > This being said, if it really makes it easier for you to build perf, I'd > be open to adjusting the bootstrap version, as long as it doesn't affect > the final bpftool build. It might lead to further headaches if someone > needs to sign the BPF programs when building perf in the future though. > > I'm also OK with adding a dependency check with a simple build error for > bpftool, although we don't currently do it for other required > dependencies in bpftool. Ok, to make a progress, I'll add this series to perf-tools tree for v6.19 first. Thanks, Namhyung