Re: [PATCH] bpf: Hoise pahole version checks into Kconfig

[Nathan Chancellor]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:50:50AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:34 AM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:19:01AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:06 AM Nathan Chancellor
> > > <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > After commit da5fb18225b4 ("bpf: Support pre-2.25-binutils objcopy for
> > > > vmlinux BTF"), having CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF enabled but lacking a valid
> > > > copy of pahole results in a kernel that will fully compile but fail to
> > > > link. The user then has to either install pahole or disable
> > > > CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF and rebuild the kernel but only after their build
> > > > has failed, which could have been a significant amount of time depending
> > > > on the hardware.
> > > >
> > > > Avoid a poor user experience and require pahole to be installed with an
> > > > appropriate version to select and use CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF, which is
> > > > standard for options that require a specific tools version.
> > > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am not sure if this is the right direction.
> > >
> > >
> > > I used to believe moving any tool test to the Kconfig
> > > was the right thing to do.
> > >
> > > For example, I tried to move the libelf test to Kconfig,
> > > and make STACK_VALIDATION depend on it.
> > >
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/1531186516-15764-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > It was rejected.
> > >
> > >
> > > In my understanding, it is good to test target toolchains
> > > in Kconfig (e.g. cc-option, ld-option, etc).
> > >
> > > As for host tools, in contrast, it is better to _intentionally_
> > > break the build in order to let users know that something needed is missing.
> > > Then, they will install necessary tools or libraries.
> > > It is just a one-time setup, in most cases,
> > > just running 'apt install' or 'dnf install'.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Recently, a similar thing happened to GCC_PLUGINS
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/20201203125700.161354-1-masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx/#23855673
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Following this pattern, if a new pahole is not installed,
> > > it might be better to break the build instead of hiding
> > > the CONFIG option.
> > >
> > > In my case, it is just a matter of 'apt install pahole'.
> > > On some distributions, the bundled pahole is not new enough,
> > > and people may end up with building pahole from the source code.
> >
> > This is fair enough. However, I think that parts of this patch could
> > still be salvaged into something that fits this by making it so that if
> > pahole is not installed (CONFIG_PAHOLE_VERSION=0) or too old, the build
> > errors at the beginning, rather at the end. I am not sure where the best
> > place to put that check would be though.
> 
> Me neither.
> 
> 
> Collecting tool checks to the beginning would be user-friendly.
> However, scattering the related code to multiple places is not
> nice from the developer point of view.
> 
> How big is it a problem if the build fails
> at the very last stage?
> 
> You can install pahole, then resume "make".
> 
> Kbuild skips unneeded building, then you will
> be able to come back to the last build stage shortly.

There will often be times where I am testing multiple configurations in
a row serially and the longer that a build takes to fail, the longer it
takes for me to get a "real" result. That is my motivation behind this
change. If people are happy with the current state of things, I will
just stick with universally disabling CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF in my test
framework.

Cheers,
Nathan