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 87F2C3101D3; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:24:52 +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=1763630692; cv=none; b=ClSEEjDxfo3z33HAPsmbM5MpRKSkXWGyIDHCqWrrKSF5FVw+260kxxHEMkA7oC45oYzKtsf3iIsXkGZvyTiskD4OieyZD5xN/1+1WNRfuYvVopa43mxcF/jUcJ89K9Har6uldNKdzERgtWqCSKhtJCqGptt1ouj+Jf4eD1sYbU4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763630692; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TMWVzmFYWjec4mLQP2TODuChpH7SIx8rCGBCJuEilPc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=LAP06y9FRu5GdafHlvO1YiYsSPohWL63ji6ktoNG/gIyNZ3i2FdlNSBhL6uEbUdJdVh8WhhGXHPchr42e19MePbJPf0BxHjvQNXTnAXvnu73qWc7h0hW7mLHK1W0TSoGcy4NzyQGBzSgVdyriuMhNWAbARxQLz2ty9OWA8sUr4M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kq4ULIoD; 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="kq4ULIoD" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4242EC4CEF1; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:24:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1763630692; bh=TMWVzmFYWjec4mLQP2TODuChpH7SIx8rCGBCJuEilPc=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=kq4ULIoDhepGN29DPe4qVLYN9ASWvyCzPIM154ax4KY1aCamFpPBUIXLBaisMaBAd D8ml3zfztNKLxGEMUGWWfneYrz36wJNnMgJWkIMYcm9CtmXR80p0ByKTXgHYTSh78f CEWIb3y3nqN0bd/fy3UEH+wZSLQf8RxXg8wwP0A91CRPjE6Pgla+O8l2j3ncgC/mHR mwLVo9cBooP7LBV8NFWzOkydWCqa5Vyj5zkQH5ADHuXzdb2a//e53ZyYW91FFxyCPL CYWgRzN2fid7ParRvmi7auodlaAOocjIlesW8ZtcWKZNMkSLYMmt+d1wnqJYCgkZcC T7AYOLHGUfojg== Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:24:49 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [BUG] bpftool: Build failure due to opensslv.h To: Namhyung Kim , Alan Maguire Cc: KP Singh , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org References: <2cb226f8-a67c-4bdb-8c59-507c99a46bab@kernel.org> <7c86f05f-2ba3-4f63-8d63-49a3b3370360@oracle.com> From: Quentin Monnet Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 2025-11-19 17:56 UTC-0800 ~ Namhyung Kim > 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? Hi Namhyung, Alan just submitted a v2 of his patch (targetting bpf-next), see: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251120084754.640405-2-alan.maguire@oracle.com/ Quentin