Bug 1846820
Summary: | build new libbpf with latest fixes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Reporter: | Jiri Olsa <jolsa> | |
Component: | libbpf | Assignee: | Jiri Olsa <jolsa> | |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Jean-Tsung Hsiao <jhsiao> | |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | ||
Priority: | unspecified | |||
Version: | 8.3 | CC: | jhsiao, jmarchan, jshortt, mcermak, skozina, thoiland | |
Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Rebase | |
Target Release: | 8.2 | |||
Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
OS: | Unspecified | |||
Whiteboard: | ||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | ||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
Clone Of: | 1809913 | |||
: | 1919345 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2020-11-04 02:11:33 UTC | Type: | Bug | |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | ||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | ||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | ||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | ||
Embargoed: | ||||
Bug Depends On: | 1809913 | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1710951, 1819241, 1919345 |
Comment 4
Jean-Tsung Hsiao
2020-07-20 19:46:46 UTC
I recall Toke needed the libbpf change for xdp-tools, but I dont know if it shows just by building xdp-tools Toke? this BZ is for libbpf update, so any standard test suite we run for libbpf will do (In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #5) > I recall Toke needed the libbpf change for xdp-tools, > but I dont know if it shows just by building xdp-tools For bug 1759154 Toke suggested using the new package to build xdp-tools/xdp-filter as a way of verification. > > Toke? > > this BZ is for libbpf update, so any standard test suite > we run for libbpf will do Not sure about "any standard test suite" . Can you point out some of them? Thanks! Jean (In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #6) > (In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #5) > > I recall Toke needed the libbpf change for xdp-tools, > > but I dont know if it shows just by building xdp-tools > For bug 1759154 Toke suggested using the new package to build > xdp-tools/xdp-filter as a way of verification. > > > > > Toke? > > > > this BZ is for libbpf update, so any standard test suite > > we run for libbpf will do > > > Not sure about "any standard test suite" . Can you point out some of them? nothing specific, I meant anything you'd normally run for libbpf (In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #7) > (In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #6) > > (In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #5) > > > I recall Toke needed the libbpf change for xdp-tools, > > > but I dont know if it shows just by building xdp-tools > > For bug 1759154 Toke suggested using the new package to build > > xdp-tools/xdp-filter as a way of verification. > > > > > > > > Toke? > > > > > > this BZ is for libbpf update, so any standard test suite > > > we run for libbpf will do > > > > > > Not sure about "any standard test suite" . Can you point out some of them? > > nothing specific, I meant anything you'd normally run for libbpf As Toke, I used it to compile xdp-tools --- nothing else. It was successful. So, I would like to set the status to VERIFIED. Looks like this was resolved, so clearing my needinfo :) (And yeah, I don't think we have anything other than xdp-tools to test libbpf against for the time being; seeing as the kernel self-tests don't use the system libbpf version; so fine with me to have this verified by testing of xdp-tools compilation) Hi Jiri, Not sure why you changed the status to Modified. Please advise. Thanks! Jean (In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #11) > Hi Jiri, > Not sure why you changed the status to Modified. > Please advise. > Thanks! > Jean there was new build added to the errata at that time jirka (In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #12) > (In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #11) > > Hi Jiri, > > Not sure why you changed the status to Modified. > > Please advise. > > Thanks! > > Jean > > there was new build added to the errata at that time > > jirka I see. I'll test that. Thanks! Jean Tested libbpf by compiling xdp-tools. It passed. See log below. Will set status to VERIFIED. [root@netqe10 xdp-tools]# rpm -q libbpf libbpf-0.0.8-4.el8.x86_64 [root@netqe10 xdp-tools]# uname -r 4.18.0-234.el8.x86_64 [root@netqe10 xdp-tools]# [root@netqe10 xdp-tools]# make lib util CC params.o CC logging.o CC util.o CC stats.o CC xpcapng.o libxdp CC staticobjs/libxdp.o LINK libxdp.a CC sharedobjs/libxdp.o LINK libxdp.so.1.0.0 M4 xdp-dispatcher.c CLANG xdp-dispatcher.o LLC xdp-dispatcher.o testing CLANG test_long_func_name.o LLC test_long_func_name.o CLANG xdp_drop.o LLC xdp_drop.o CLANG xdp_pass.o LLC xdp_pass.o LINK xdp-dispatcher.o xdp-filter CLANG xdpfilt_dny_udp.o LLC xdpfilt_dny_udp.o CLANG xdpfilt_dny_tcp.o LLC xdpfilt_dny_tcp.o CLANG xdpfilt_dny_ip.o LLC xdpfilt_dny_ip.o CLANG xdpfilt_dny_eth.o LLC xdpfilt_dny_eth.o CLANG xdpfilt_dny_all.o LLC xdpfilt_dny_all.o CLANG xdpfilt_alw_udp.o LLC xdpfilt_alw_udp.o CLANG xdpfilt_alw_tcp.o LLC xdpfilt_alw_tcp.o CLANG xdpfilt_alw_ip.o LLC xdpfilt_alw_ip.o CLANG xdpfilt_alw_eth.o LLC xdpfilt_alw_eth.o CLANG xdpfilt_alw_all.o LLC xdpfilt_alw_all.o CC xdp-filter LINK xdp-dispatcher.o xdp-loader CC xdp-loader LINK xdp-dispatcher.o xdp-dump CC xdpdump CLANG xdpdump_bpf.o LLC xdpdump_bpf.o LINK xdp-dispatcher.o (In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #12) > (In reply to Jean-Tsung Hsiao from comment #11) > > Hi Jiri, > > Not sure why you changed the status to Modified. > > Please advise. > > Thanks! > > Jean > > there was new build added to the errata at that time > > jirka Hi Jiri. It's a good practice tu update the Fixed In Version field when you change the status to MODIFIED. That helps prevents misunderstanding with QE wrt fixed versions. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory (libbpf bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:4588 |