From: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
To: Vitaly Chikunov <vt@altlinux.org>
Cc: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, eddyz87@gmail.com, olsajiri@gmail.com,
yatsenko@meta.com, alexis.lothore@bootlin.com,
ameryhung@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
martin.lau@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, clm@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 01/15] selftests/bpf: Pass through build flags to bpftool and resolve_btfids
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:42:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <de42bb10-dafd-45da-97fe-b59be487f30b@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aaXwaMCIm9UZUx9O@altlinux.org>
On 3/2/26 12:27 PM, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> Ihor,
>
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 10:01:59AM -0800, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
>> On 3/2/26 7:22 AM, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 08:23:51PM -0800, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
>>>> On 2/20/26 2:57 PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile
>>>>>> index 1733a6e93a07..ef083602b73a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile
>>>>>> +++ b/tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile
>>>>>> @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ $(BPFOBJ): $(wildcard $(LIBBPF_SRC)/*.[ch] $(LIBBPF_SRC)/Makefile) | $(LIBBPF_OU
>>>>>> LIBELF_FLAGS := $(shell $(HOSTPKG_CONFIG) libelf --cflags 2>/dev/null)
>>>>>> LIBELF_LIBS := $(shell $(HOSTPKG_CONFIG) libelf --libs 2>/dev/null || echo -lelf)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +ZLIB_LIBS := $(shell $(HOSTPKG_CONFIG) zlib --libs 2>/dev/null || echo -lz)
>>>>>> +ZSTD_LIBS := $(shell $(HOSTPKG_CONFIG) libzstd --libs 2>/dev/null || echo -lzstd)
>>>>>
>>>>> The "|| echo -lzstd" fallback makes zstd an unconditional link
>>>>> dependency. On systems where libzstd-dev is not installed, pkg-config
>>>>> fails and the fallback provides -lzstd, but the linker cannot find the
>>>>> library and the build fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> bpftool handles the same transitive dependency conditionally via a
>>>>> feature test:
>>>>>
>>>>> tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile:
>>>>> ifeq ($(feature-libelf-zstd),1)
>>>>> LIBS += -lzstd
>>>>> LIBS_BOOTSTRAP += -lzstd
>>>>> endif
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be safer to drop the fallback here so ZSTD_LIBS is empty
>>>>> when zstd is not available?
>>>>>
>>>>> ZSTD_LIBS := $(shell $(HOSTPKG_CONFIG) libzstd --libs 2>/dev/null)
>>>>>
>>>>> This would still link zstd when present (needed for the static linking
>>>>> case where libelf.a pulls in ZSTD symbols from elf_compress.o), but
>>>>> avoid breaking dynamic builds on systems without libzstd-dev.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, while AI may be technically correct that the build will fail if
>>>> libelf is installed and libzstd is not, it seems a far-fetched
>>>> situation, given that libelf depends on libzstd.
>>>
>>> This is not far-fetched, and we have build failure for v7.0-rc2 due to
>>> this.
>>>
>>> ld: cannot find -lzstd: No such file or directory
>>>
>>> Even though libelf is linked with libzstd, this does not imply
>>> libzstd-devel (with headers and so library) is there when building.
>>
>> Does AI's suggestion make sense in your case then?
>> That is, make ZSTD_LIBS empty in case pkg-config didn't find libzstd?
>>
>> I'm happy to fix this, the build shouldn't fail unless it must.
>>
>> But I am curious how and why an environment building Linux with BTF
>> (requiring build and run of resolve_btfids), which needs libelf-dev
>> and presumably its dependencies, would exclude/avoid installing
>> libzstd-dev?
>
> Are you providing -lzstd just to link with libelf? I don't think you need to
An explicit -lzstd flag was added to enable a static build [1].
> care about zstd in that case. libelf is already linked with libzstd. If you
> don't use libzstd functions yourself you don't need to link with -lzstd.
>
> Example build without -lzstd:
>
> builder@x86_64:~/RPM/BUILD/kernel-image-7.0-rc2$ grep zstd tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/Makefile
> ZSTD_LIBS := $(shell $(HOSTPKG_CONFIG) libzstd --libs 2>/dev/null)
>
> builder@x86_64:~/RPM/BUILD/kernel-image-7.0-rc2$ ldd ./tools/bpf/resolve_btfids/resolve_btfids
> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ff8b2329000)
> libelf.so.1 => /lib64/libelf.so.1 (0x00007ff8b2287000)
> libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x00007ff8b2269000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007ff8b206e000)
> libzstd.so.1 => /lib64/libzstd.so.1 (0x00007ff8b1fc8000)
> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007ff8b232b000)
> builder@x86_64:~/RPM/BUILD/kernel-image-7.0-rc2$ rpm -q libzstd
> libzstd-1.5.5-alt2.x86_64
> builder@x86_64:~/RPM/BUILD/kernel-image-7.0-rc2$ rpm -q libzstd-devel
> package libzstd-devel is not installed
>
> lib*-devel/-dev packages only required if your source is directly using the
> target lib, in other causes this is already handled.
The issue that AI has raised is whether to leave -lzstd link flag by
default or not. I decided to leave it on the assumption that the
environments building Linux with BTF (hence building and running
resovle_btfids) would have libelf-dev installed (because -lelf has
been a requirement forever [2]), and libzstd-dev is its dependency.
I checked a few recent distros, all of them have libzstd-dev as a
direct dependency of libelf-dev, which supports my assumption:
# Fedora
$ dnf repoquery --providers-of=depends elfutils-libelf-devel
Updating and loading repositories:
Repositories loaded.
elfutils-libelf-0:0.194-1.fc43.i686
elfutils-libelf-0:0.194-1.fc43.x86_64
libzstd-devel-0:1.5.7-2.fc43.i686
libzstd-devel-0:1.5.7-2.fc43.x86_64
pkgconf-pkg-config-0:2.3.0-3.fc43.i686
pkgconf-pkg-config-0:2.3.0-3.fc43.x86_64
zlib-ng-compat-devel-0:2.3.3-1.fc43.i686
zlib-ng-compat-devel-0:2.3.3-1.fc43.x86_64
# Ubuntu
$ apt info libelf-dev
Package: libelf-dev
Version: 0.190-1.1ubuntu0.1
Priority: optional
Section: libdevel
Source: elfutils
Origin: Ubuntu
Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>
Original-Maintainer: Debian Elfutils Maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>
Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug
Installed-Size: 385 kB
Depends: libelf1t64 (= 0.190-1.1ubuntu0.1), zlib1g-dev, libzstd-dev
Conflicts: libelfg0-dev
[...]
# Debian
$ apt info libelf-dev
Package: libelf-dev
Version: 0.192-4
Priority: optional
Section: libdevel
Source: elfutils
Maintainer: Debian Elfutils Maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>
Installed-Size: 420 kB
Depends: libelf1t64 (= 0.192-4), zlib1g-dev, libzstd-dev
Conflicts: libelfg0-dev
[...]
Of course it's plausible to have a system where libelf-dev is present
while libzstd-dev is not, as demonstrated by you running one.
Anyways this is easy to fix, I'll send a patch shortly.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/4ff82800-2daa-4b9f-95a9-6f512859ee70@linux.dev/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200711215329.41165-2-jolsa@kernel.org/
>
> Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we can leave the default -lzstd to have an explicit
>>>> dependency in the Makefile.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ... ]
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-02 22:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-20 22:25 [PATCH bpf v3 00/15] selftests/bpf: Fixes for userspace ASAN Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 01/15] selftests/bpf: Pass through build flags to bpftool and resolve_btfids Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:57 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-02-21 4:23 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-03-02 15:22 ` Vitaly Chikunov
2026-03-02 18:01 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-03-02 20:27 ` Vitaly Chikunov
2026-03-02 22:42 ` Ihor Solodrai [this message]
2026-03-03 4:01 ` Vitaly Chikunov
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 02/15] resolve_btfids: Fix memory leaks reported by ASAN Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 03/15] selftests/bpf: Add DENYLIST.asan Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 04/15] selftests/bpf: Refactor bpf_get_ksyms() trace helper Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 05/15] selftests/bpf: Fix memory leaks in tests Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 06/15] selftests/bpf: Fix cleanup in check_fd_array_cnt__fd_array_too_big() Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 07/15] veristat: Fix a memory leak for preset ENUMERATOR Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 08/15] selftests/bpf: Fix use-after-free in xdp_metadata test Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 09/15] selftests/bpf: Fix double thread join in uprobe_multi_test Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:25 ` [PATCH bpf v3 10/15] selftests/bpf: Fix resource leaks caused by missing cleanups Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:26 ` [PATCH bpf v3 11/15] selftests/bpf: Free bpf_object in test_sysctl Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:26 ` [PATCH bpf v3 12/15] selftests/bpf: Fix array bounds warning in jit_disasm_helpers Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:26 ` [PATCH bpf v3 13/15] selftests/bpf: Fix out-of-bounds array access bugs reported by ASAN Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:26 ` [PATCH bpf v3 14/15] selftests/bpf: Check BPFTOOL env var in detect_bpftool_path() Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-20 22:26 ` [PATCH bpf v3 15/15] selftests/bpf: Don't override SIGSEGV handler with ASAN Ihor Solodrai
2026-02-21 0:52 ` Eduard Zingerman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=de42bb10-dafd-45da-97fe-b59be487f30b@linux.dev \
--to=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=alexis.lothore@bootlin.com \
--cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=olsajiri@gmail.com \
--cc=vt@altlinux.org \
--cc=yatsenko@meta.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox