Re: [PATCH] libbpf: Fix up generation of bpf_helper_defs.h

Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2019-11-26T22:10:26Z

Em Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 02:05:41PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:12 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Em Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 07:50:44PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen escreveu:
> > > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Em Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 05:38:18PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen escreveu:
> > > >> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com> writes:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Em Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:10:45PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > >> >> Hi guys,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> While merging perf/core with mainline I found the problem below for
> > > >> >> which I'm adding this patch to my perf/core branch, that soon will go
> > > >> >> Ingo's way, etc. Please let me know if you think this should be handled
> > > >> >> some other way,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This is still not enough, fails building in a container where all we
> > > >> > have is the tarball contents, will try to fix later.
> > > >>
> > > >> Wouldn't the right thing to do not be to just run the script, and then
> > > >> put the generated bpf_helper_defs.h into the tarball?
> >
> > > > I would rather continue just running tar and have the build process
> > > > in-tree or outside be the same.
> > >
> > > Hmm, right. Well that Python script basically just parses
> > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h; and it can be given the path of that file with
> > > the --filename argument. So as long as that file is present, it should
> > > be possible to make it work, I guess?
> >
> > > However, isn't the point of the tarball to make a "stand-alone" source
> > > distribution?
> >
> > Yes, it is, and as far as possible without any prep, just include the
> > in-source tree files needed to build it.
> >
> > > I'd argue that it makes more sense to just include the
> > > generated header, then: The point of the Python script is specifically
> > > to extract the latest version of the helper definitions from the kernel
> > > source tree. And if you're "freezing" a version into a tarball, doesn't
> > > it make more sense to also freeze the list of BPF helpers?
> >
> > Your suggestion may well even be the only solution, as older systems
> > don't have python3, and that script requires it :-\
> >
> > Some containers were showing this:
> >
> > /bin/sh: 1: /git/linux/scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py: not found
> > Makefile:184: recipe for target 'bpf_helper_defs.h' failed
> > make[3]: *** [bpf_helper_defs.h] Error 127
> > make[3]: *** Deleting file 'bpf_helper_defs.h'
> > Makefile.perf:778: recipe for target '/tmp/build/perf/libbpf.a' failed
> >
> > That "not found" doesn't mean what it looks from staring at the above,
> > its just that:
> >
> > nobody@1fb841e33ba3:/tmp/perf-5.4.0$ head -1 /tmp/perf-5.4.0/scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py
> > #!/usr/bin/python3
> > nobody@1fb841e33ba3:/tmp/perf-5.4.0$ ls -la /usr/bin/python3
> > ls: cannot access /usr/bin/python3: No such file or directory
> > nobody@1fb841e33ba3:/tmp/perf-5.4.0$
> >
> > So, for now, I'll keep my fix and start modifying the containers where
> > this fails and disable testing libbpf/perf integration with BPF on those
> > containers :-\
>
> I don't think there is anything Python3-specific in that script. I
> changed first line to
>
> #!/usr/bin/env python
>
> and it worked just fine. Do you mind adding this fix and make those
> older containers happy(-ier?).

I'll try it, was trying the other way around, i.e. adding python3 to
those containers and they got happier, but fatter, so I'll remove that
and try your way, thanks!

I didn't try it that way due to what comes right after the interpreter
line:

#!/usr/bin/python3
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
#
# Copyright (C) 2018-2019 Netronome Systems, Inc.

# In case user attempts to run with Python 2.
from __future__ import print_function

- Arnaldo

> >
> > I.e. doing:
> >
> > nobody@1fb841e33ba3:/tmp/perf-5.4.0$ make NO_LIBBPF=1 -C /tmp/perf-5.4.0/tools/perf/ O=/tmp/build/perf
> >
> > which ends up with a functional perf, just one without libbpf linked in:
> >
> > nobody@1fb841e33ba3:/tmp/perf-5.4.0$ /tmp/build/perf/perf -vv
> > perf version 5.4.gf69779ce8f86
> > dwarf: [ on ] # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
> > dwarf_getlocations: [ OFF ] # HAVE_DWARF_GETLOCATIONS_SUPPORT
> > glibc: [ on ] # HAVE_GLIBC_SUPPORT
> > gtk2: [ on ] # HAVE_GTK2_SUPPORT
> > syscall_table: [ on ] # HAVE_SYSCALL_TABLE_SUPPORT
> > libbfd: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT
> > libelf: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBELF_SUPPORT
> > libnuma: [ OFF ] # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
> > numa_num_possible_cpus: [ OFF ] # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
> > libperl: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBPERL_SUPPORT
> > libpython: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBPYTHON_SUPPORT
> > libslang: [ on ] # HAVE_SLANG_SUPPORT
> > libcrypto: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBCRYPTO_SUPPORT
> > libunwind: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBUNWIND_SUPPORT
> > libdw-dwarf-unwind: [ on ] # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
> > zlib: [ on ] # HAVE_ZLIB_SUPPORT
> > lzma: [ on ] # HAVE_LZMA_SUPPORT
> > get_cpuid: [ on ] # HAVE_AUXTRACE_SUPPORT
> > bpf: [ OFF ] # HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> > aio: [ on ] # HAVE_AIO_SUPPORT
> > zstd: [ OFF ] # HAVE_ZSTD_SUPPORT
> > nobody@1fb841e33ba3:/tmp/perf-5.4.0$
> >
> > The the build tests for libbpf and the bpf support in perf will
> > continue, but for a reduced set of containers, those with python3.
> >
> > People wanting to build libbpf on such older systems will hopefully find
> > this discussion in google, run the script, get the output and have it
> > working.
> >
> > - Arnaldo

--

- Arnaldo