[v4,bpf-next,00/15] samples: bpf: improve/fix cross-compilation

Message ID 20191009204134.26960-1-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org
Headers show
Series
  • samples: bpf: improve/fix cross-compilation
Related show

Message

Ivan Khoronzhuk Oct. 9, 2019, 8:41 p.m.
This series contains mainly fixes/improvements for cross-compilation
but not only, tested for arm, arm64, and intended for any arch.
Also verified on native build (not cross compilation) for x86_64
and arm, arm64.

Initial RFC link:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/29/1665

Prev. version:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/16/231

Besides the patches given here, the RFC also contains couple patches
related to llvm clang
  arm: include: asm: swab: mask rev16 instruction for clang
  arm: include: asm: unified: mask .syntax unified for clang
They are necessarily to verify arm 32 build.

Also, couple more fixes were added but are not merged in bpf-next yet,
they can be needed for verification/configuration steps, if not in
your tree the fixes can be taken here:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg601716.html
https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg601714.html
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-kbuild/msg23468.html

Now, to build samples, SAMPLE_BPF should be enabled in config.

The change touches not only cross-compilation and can have impact on
other archs and build environments, so might be good idea to verify
it in order to add appropriate changes, some warn options could be
tuned also.

All is tested on x86-64 with clang installed (has to be built containing
targets for arm, arm64..., see llc --version, usually it's present already)

Instructions to test native on x86_64
=================================================
Native build on x86_64 is done in usual way and shouldn't have difference
except HOSTCC is now printed as CC wile building the samples.

Instructions to test cross compilation on arm64
=================================================
#Toolchain used for test:
gcc version 8.3.0
(GNU Toolchain for the A-profile Architecture 8.3-2019.03 (arm-rel-8.36))

# Get some arm64 FS, containing at least libelf
I've used sdk for TI am65x got here:
http://downloads.ti.com/processor-sdk-linux/esd/AM65X/latest/exports/\
ti-processor-sdk-linux-am65xx-evm-06.00.00.07-Linux-x86-Install.bin

# Install this binary to some dir, say "sdk".
# Configure kernel (use defconfig as no matter), but clean everything
# before.
make ARCH=arm64 -C tools/ clean
make ARCH=arm64 -C samples/bpf clean
make ARCH=arm64 clean
make ARCH=arm64 defconfig

# Enable SAMPLE_BPF and it's dependencies in config

# The kernel version used in sdk doesn't correspond to checked one,
# but for this verification only headers need to be syched,
# so install them (can be enabled in config):
make ARCH=arm64 headers_install

# or on SDK if need keep them in sync (not necessarily to verify):

make ARCH=arm64 INSTALL_HDR_PATH=/../sdk/\
ti-processor-sdk-linux-am65xx-evm-06.00.00.07/linux-devkit/sysroots/\
aarch64-linux/usr headers_install

# Build samples
make samples/bpf/ ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE="aarch64-linux-gnu-"\
SYSROOT="/../sdk/ti-processor-sdk-linux-am65xx-evm-06.00.00.07/\
linux-devkit/sysroots/aarch64-linux"

Instructions to test cross compilation on arm
=================================================
#Toolchains used for test:
arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (Linaro GCC 7.2-2017.11) 7.2.1 20171011
or
arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
(GNU Toolchain for the A-profile Architecture 8.3-2019.03 \
(arm-rel-8.36)) 8.3.0

# Get some FS, I've used sdk for TI am52xx got here:
http://downloads.ti.com/processor-sdk-linux/esd/AM57X/05_03_00_07/exports/\
ti-processor-sdk-linux-am57xx-evm-05.03.00.07-Linux-x86-Install.bin

# Install this binary to some dir, say "sdk".
# Configure kernel, but clean everything before.
make ARCH=arm -C tools/ clean
make ARCH=arm -C samples/bpf clean
make ARCH=arm clean
make ARCH=arm omap2plus_defconfig

# The kernel version used in sdk doesn't correspond to checked one, but
# headers only should be synched,
# so install them (can be enabled in config):

make ARCH=arm headers_install

# or on SDK if need keep them in sync (not necessarily):

make ARCH=arm INSTALL_HDR_PATH=/../sdk/\
ti-processor-sdk-linux-am57xx-evm-05.03.00.07/linux-devkit/sysroots/\
armv7ahf-neon-linux-gnueabi/usr headers_install

# Build samples
make samples/bpf/ ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"\
SYSROOT="/../sdk/ti-processor-sdk-linux-am57xx-evm-05.03\
.00.07/linux-devkit/sysroots/armv7ahf-neon-linux-gnueabi"


Based on bpf-next/master

v4..v3:
- renamed CLANG_EXTRA_CFLAGS on BPF_EXTRA_CFLAGS
- used filter for ARCH_ARM_SELECTOR
- omit "-fomit-frame-pointer" and use same flags for native and "cross"
- used sample/bpf prefixes
- use C instead of C++ compiler for test_libbpf target

v3..v2:
- renamed makefile.progs to makeifle.target, as more appropriate
- left only __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ for D options for arm
- for host build - left options from KBUILD_HOST for compatibility reasons
- split patch adding c/cxx/ld flags to libbpf by modules
- moved readme change to separate patch
- added patch setting options for cross-compile
- fixed issue with option error for syscall_nrs.S,
  avoiding overlap for ccflags-y.

v2..v1:
- restructured patches order
- split "samples: bpf: Makefile: base progs build on Makefile.progs"
  to make change more readable. It added couple nice extra patches.
- removed redundant patch:
  "samples: bpf: Makefile: remove target for native build"
- added fix:
  "samples: bpf: makefile: fix cookie_uid_helper_example obj build"
- limited -D option filter only for arm
- improved comments
- added couple instructions to verify cross compilation for arm and
  arm64 arches based on TI am57xx and am65xx sdks.
- corrected include a little order

Ivan Khoronzhuk (15):
  samples/bpf: fix HDR_PROBE "echo"
  samples/bpf: fix cookie_uid_helper_example obj build
  samples/bpf: use --target from cross-compile
  samples/bpf: use own EXTRA_CFLAGS for clang commands
  samples/bpf: use __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ selector for arm
  samples/bpf: drop unnecessarily inclusion for bpf_load
  samples/bpf add makefile.target for separate CC target build
  samples/bpf: base target programs rules on Makefile.target
  samples/bpf: use own flags but not HOSTCFLAGS
  samples/bpf: use target CC environment for HDR_PROBE
  libbpf: don't use cxx to test_libpf target
  libbpf: add C/LDFLAGS to libbpf.so and test_libpf targets
  samples/bpf: provide C/LDFLAGS to libbpf
  samples/bpf: add sysroot support
  samples/bpf: add preparation steps and sysroot info to readme

 samples/bpf/Makefile                          | 164 ++++++++++--------
 samples/bpf/Makefile.target                   |  75 ++++++++
 samples/bpf/README.rst                        |  41 ++++-
 tools/lib/bpf/Makefile                        |  23 +--
 .../bpf/{test_libbpf.cpp => test_libbpf.c}    |  14 +-
 5 files changed, 218 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 samples/bpf/Makefile.target
 rename tools/lib/bpf/{test_libbpf.cpp => test_libbpf.c} (61%)

-- 
2.17.1

Comments

Andrii Nakryiko Oct. 10, 2019, 12:26 a.m. | #1
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:43 PM Ivan Khoronzhuk
<ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> wrote:
>

> No need to use C++ for test_libbpf target when libbpf is on C and it

> can be tested with C, after this change the CXXFLAGS in makefiles can

> be avoided, at least in bpf samples, when sysroot is used, passing

> same C/LDFLAGS as for lib.

>

> Add "return 0" in test_libbpf to void warn, but also remove spaces at

> start of the lines to keep same style and avoid warns while apply.

>

> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>

> ---


Thanks for the clean up!

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>


[...]