Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #60725 > unrolled thread

Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

Contents

  Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com> - 2018-04-20 14:30 +0200
    Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Robert Haist <rhaist@mailbox.org> - 2018-10-24 16:00 +0200
    Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2018-11-15 06:30 +0100
    Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2018-11-20 09:00 +0100
      Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Vincent Blut <vincent.debian@free.fr> - 2018-11-20 12:50 +0100
      Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2018-11-21 06:40 +0100
        Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> - 2018-11-27 19:00 +0100
          Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2018-11-29 05:00 +0100
            Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com> - 2018-12-14 11:20 +0100
              Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Simon Bernard <contact@simonbernard.eu> - 2019-01-25 18:50 +0100
              Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com> - 2019-04-15 16:50 +0200
                Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@netronome.com> - 2019-07-10 19:40 +0200
    Bug#896165: ITP: bpftool -- utility for querying and updating BPF objects Christian Barcenas <christian@cbarcenas.com> - 2020-03-22 05:50 +0100
    Processed (with 1 error): ITP: bpftool -- utility for querying  and updating BPF objects "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2020-03-22 05:50 +0100

#60725 — Bug#896165: linux: request packaging of bpftool

Source: linux
Version: 4.9.65-3+deb9u2
Severity: wishlist

Dear Maintainer,

I would like to request packaging of bpftool which has been
included in upstream Linux tree since v4.15-rc1. I expect this can
be done in a similar manner to the way that perf, also present in
the upstream Linux kernel tree, is packaged.

The purpose of bpftool is to allow querying and updating BPF objects on the
system. It is actively developed and maintained by upstream.

Kind regards,

Simon

*** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***

   * What led up to the situation?
   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
     ineffective)?
   * What was the outcome of this action?
   * What outcome did you expect instead?

*** End of the template - remove these template lines ***


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.4
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=nl_NL.utf8, LC_CTYPE=nl_NL.utf8 (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C), LANGUAGE=nl_NL.utf8 (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#62421

Source: linux
Version: 4.16.5-1
Followup-For: Bug #896165

control: severity -1 important

Dear Maintainers,

I would like to add the packaging of a direct dependency to the list: libbpf.
This library is most useful for using currently ongoing extensions of the linux
kernel towards a new high-speed packet processing layer called XDP which uses
eBPF.

One software currently in Debian that might directly benefit from this library
is suricata (https://suricata.readthedocs.io/en/latest/capture-hardware/ebpf-
xdp.html).
Please consider to maybe include this library in your current endeavors to
allow us supporting this feature in the suricata package and future software to
come.

Thank you,
Robert Haist

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62497

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 02:07:40PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> I would like to request packaging of bpftool which has been
> included in upstream Linux tree since v4.15-rc1. I expect this can
> be done in a similar manner to the way that perf, also present in
> the upstream Linux kernel tree, is packaged.

I've started some work on this. It's not ready to be merged with the
kernel packaging but does build. Please see
https://salsa.debian.org/noahm/linux/commits/bpftool and feel free to
send improvements.

noah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62510

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 02:07:40PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> I would like to request packaging of bpftool which has been
> included in upstream Linux tree since v4.15-rc1. I expect this can
> be done in a similar manner to the way that perf, also present in
> the upstream Linux kernel tree, is packaged.

Please see https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/merge_requests/72

It's not ready for merge, but hopefully it gets some good feedback and I
can get it ready before long.

I expect that applying the same patch to the 4.18 branch for sid will be
straightforward.

Is the plan for buster to include 4.18, or 4.19? Or something else?

noah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62511

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:34:26PM -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 02:07:40PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
>> I would like to request packaging of bpftool which has been
>> included in upstream Linux tree since v4.15-rc1. I expect this can
>> be done in a similar manner to the way that perf, also present in
>> the upstream Linux kernel tree, is packaged.
>
>[…]
>
>Is the plan for buster to include 4.18, or 4.19? Or something else?

According to the last kernel team meeting¹, Linux 4.19 will be used for 
Buster.

>noah

Cheers,
Vincent


¹ http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-kernel/2018/debian-kernel.2018-10-02-18.33.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62515

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:34:26PM -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> Please see https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/merge_requests/72

Ugh. We cannot currently package bpftool in Debian. There are several
GPLv2-only files in its source tree, and it links unconditionally
against the GPLv3 libbfd. :(

There is work underway to make libbfd optional, so the situation may
change before too long:
https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg254808.html

noah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62567

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:28:39 -0800 Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:34:26PM -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> > Please see https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/merge_requests/72
> 
> Ugh. We cannot currently package bpftool in Debian. There are several
> GPLv2-only files in its source tree, and it links unconditionally
> against the GPLv3 libbfd. :(

If we relicense the GPLv2-only files to be GPLv2-only OR BSD-2-Clause
- like the majority of bpftool sources - would that work?

I wanted to make sure GPLv2-only + BSD-2-Clause will satisfy the
license requirement when linking against libbfd, before I start chasing
people for acks on the relicense :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62590

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:50:17AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Please see https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/merge_requests/72
> > 
> > Ugh. We cannot currently package bpftool in Debian. There are several
> > GPLv2-only files in its source tree, and it links unconditionally
> > against the GPLv3 libbfd. :(
> 
> If we relicense the GPLv2-only files to be GPLv2-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> - like the majority of bpftool sources - would that work?
> 
> I wanted to make sure GPLv2-only + BSD-2-Clause will satisfy the
> license requirement when linking against libbfd, before I start chasing
> people for acks on the relicense :)

Yes, the BSD 2-clause license is OK. GPLv2 or greater would be OK, too.
It's really just GPLv2-only in this case that's causing the problem.

noah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62721

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:49:50PM -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:50:17AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > Please see https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/merge_requests/72
> > > 
> > > Ugh. We cannot currently package bpftool in Debian. There are several
> > > GPLv2-only files in its source tree, and it links unconditionally
> > > against the GPLv3 libbfd. :(
> > 
> > If we relicense the GPLv2-only files to be GPLv2-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> > - like the majority of bpftool sources - would that work?
> > 
> > I wanted to make sure GPLv2-only + BSD-2-Clause will satisfy the
> > license requirement when linking against libbfd, before I start chasing
> > people for acks on the relicense :)
> 
> Yes, the BSD 2-clause license is OK. GPLv2 or greater would be OK, too.
> It's really just GPLv2-only in this case that's causing the problem.

Hi,

the following merge-commit, which has been accepted into bpf-next
for inclusion in v4.21, addresses the problem raised above by
clarifying that the licence of bpftool is GPLv2-only + BSD-2-Clause.

commit 00842be52f2015c3c1028e16b565f325f4ca20fc
Merge: 8f9a8a619311 907b22365115
Author: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Thu Dec 13 12:08:45 2018 +0100

    Merge branch 'bpf-bpftool-license-update'
    
    Jakub Kicinski says:
    
    ====================
    We are changing/clarifying the license on bpftool to GPLv2-only +
    BSD-2-Clause for all files.  Current license mix is incompatible
    with libbfd (which is GPLv3-only) and therefore Debian maintainers
    are apprehensive about packaging bpftool.
    
    Acks include authors of code which has been copied into bpftool (e.g.
    JSON writer from iproute2, code from tools/bpf, code from BPF samples
    and selftests, etc.)
    
    Thanks again to all the authors who acked the change!
    ====================
    
    Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
    Acked-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
    Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
    Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
    Acked-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
    Acked-by: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
    Acked-by: David Calavera <david.calavera@gmail.com>
    Acked-by: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com>
    Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joe@wand.net.nz>
    Acked-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
    Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
    Acked-by: Petar Penkov <ppenkov@stanford.edu>
    Acked-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan@linux.ibm.com>
    Acked-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp>
    Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
    Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
    Acked-by: Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
    Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
    Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
    CC: okash.khawaja@gmail.com
    Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#63174

Did you have any large estimation about when we could expect to have 
bpftool packaged in Debian(experimental).

Reading this thread, I feel this is so closed.

Is there any easy way to test current package ? and give some feedback ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#63867

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:16:10AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:49:50PM -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:50:17AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > > Please see https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/merge_requests/72
> > > > 
> > > > Ugh. We cannot currently package bpftool in Debian. There are several
> > > > GPLv2-only files in its source tree, and it links unconditionally
> > > > against the GPLv3 libbfd. :(
> > > 
> > > If we relicense the GPLv2-only files to be GPLv2-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> > > - like the majority of bpftool sources - would that work?
> > > 
> > > I wanted to make sure GPLv2-only + BSD-2-Clause will satisfy the
> > > license requirement when linking against libbfd, before I start chasing
> > > people for acks on the relicense :)
> > 
> > Yes, the BSD 2-clause license is OK. GPLv2 or greater would be OK, too.
> > It's really just GPLv2-only in this case that's causing the problem.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the following merge-commit, which has been accepted into bpf-next
> for inclusion in v4.21, addresses the problem raised above by
> clarifying that the licence of bpftool is GPLv2-only + BSD-2-Clause.
> 
> commit 00842be52f2015c3c1028e16b565f325f4ca20fc
> Merge: 8f9a8a619311 907b22365115
> Author: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> Date:   Thu Dec 13 12:08:45 2018 +0100
> 
>     Merge branch 'bpf-bpftool-license-update'
>     
>     Jakub Kicinski says:
>     
>     ====================
>     We are changing/clarifying the license on bpftool to GPLv2-only +
>     BSD-2-Clause for all files.  Current license mix is incompatible
>     with libbfd (which is GPLv3-only) and therefore Debian maintainers
>     are apprehensive about packaging bpftool.
>     
>     Acks include authors of code which has been copied into bpftool (e.g.
>     JSON writer from iproute2, code from tools/bpf, code from BPF samples
>     and selftests, etc.)
>     
>     Thanks again to all the authors who acked the change!
>     ====================
>     
>     Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
>     Acked-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
>     Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
>     Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
>     Acked-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
>     Acked-by: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
>     Acked-by: David Calavera <david.calavera@gmail.com>
>     Acked-by: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com>
>     Acked-by: Joe Stringer <joe@wand.net.nz>
>     Acked-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>     Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
>     Acked-by: Petar Penkov <ppenkov@stanford.edu>
>     Acked-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan@linux.ibm.com>
>     Acked-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>     Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>     Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
>     Acked-by: Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@gmail.com>
>     Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
>     Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
>     CC: okash.khawaja@gmail.com
>     Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

Hi Noah,

I believe that the above commit resolves the licence problem that was
raised earlier. Is it possible to find a way to move forwards on packaging
bpftool?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64419

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 16:45:34 +0200 Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Noah,
>
> I believe that the above commit resolves the licence problem that was
> raised earlier. Is it possible to find a way to move forwards on packaging
> bpftool?

Greetings,

I would really like to see bpftool packaged. Is there anything that I
could do to help here? Noah, I can try to rebase your pull request
(https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/merge_requests/72) and
submit it again on Salsa if you think this is helpful?

Kind regards,
Quentin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66577 — Bug#896165: ITP: bpftool -- utility for querying and updating BPF objects

Control: reassign -1 wnpp
Control: notfound -1 linux/4.16.5-1
Control: affects -1 src:linux
Control: retitle ITP: bpftool -- utility for querying and updating BPF objects
Control: owner -1 !

Hi all, I'm restructuring this as an ITP.

I'm very keen to get bpftool in Debian as well, now that the copyright
concerns are resolved.

I'll work with the kernel team to get it packaged. Thanks Noah for all the
work so far.

Christian

--

* Package name    : bpftool
  Version         : 5.5.8
  Upstream Author : Various Linux kernel developers
* URL             : https://www.kernel.org/
* License         : GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
  Programming Lang: C
  Description     : utility for querying and updating BPF objects

bpftool is a utility for querying and updating BPF objects on the system.

Packaging bpftool will improve the experience of developing and deploying
BPF-backed software on Debian systems.

bpftool is actively developed and is maintained as part of the upstream kernel.

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/bpf/bpftool

Therefore, the Debian kernel source package (src:linux) is a natural place for
the bpftool binary package.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66578 — Processed (with 1 error): ITP: bpftool -- utility for querying and updating BPF objects

Processing control commands:

> reassign -1 wnpp
Bug #896165 [src:linux] linux: request packaging of bpftool
Bug reassigned from package 'src:linux' to 'wnpp'.
No longer marked as found in versions linux/4.16.5-1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #896165 to the same values previously set
> notfound -1 linux/4.16.5-1
Bug #896165 [wnpp] linux: request packaging of bpftool
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #896165 to the same values previously set
> affects -1 src:linux
Bug #896165 [wnpp] linux: request packaging of bpftool
Added indication that 896165 affects src:linux
> retitle ITP: bpftool -- utility for querying and updating BPF objects
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.

> owner -1 !
Bug #896165 [wnpp] linux: request packaging of bpftool
Owner recorded as Christian Barcenas <christian@cbarcenas.com>.

-- 
896165: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896165
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web