[PATCH] net/af_xdp: make compatible with libbpf v0.8.0

[Kevin Traynor]

On 15/03/2023 11:47, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> On 21/12/2022 09:28, Kevin Traynor wrote:
>> On 21/12/2022 06:09, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>> On 12/20/22 17:05, Kevin Traynor wrote:
>>>> On 24/06/2022 11:23, Ciara Loftus wrote:
>>>>> libbpf v0.8.0 deprecates the bpf_get_link_xdp_id and bpf_set_link_xdp_fd
>>>>> functions. Use meson to detect if libbpf >= v0.7.0 is linked and if
>>>>> so, use
>>>>> the recommended replacement functions bpf_xdp_query_id, bpf_xdp_attach
>>>>> and bpf_xdp_detach which are available to use since libbpf v0.7.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also prevent linking with libbpf versions > v0.8.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Loftus <ciara.loftus at intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew/Qi (assuming Ciara is still out of office),
>>>>
>>>> I am seeing a similar issue [1] on 21.11 branch with Fedora 37
>>>> (libbpf-0.8.0-2.fc37.x86_64 and libxdp-1.2.6-1.fc37.x86_64).
>>>>
>>>> This patch alone won't apply as there are other dependencies. Looking at
>>>> the commits in main branch, it seems like I could take all these [2] to
>>>> resolve the issue. With these cherry-picked the build warnings on Fedora
>>>> 37 are removed.
>>>>
>>>> It's a bit late to take these for DPDK 21.11.3 as I intend to release
>>>> later today/tomorrow, so it can be resolved for DPDK 21.11.4.
>>>>
>>>> Do the commits below look ok for backport? Main branch might be able to
>>>> demand user uses new libbpf/libxdp versions etc, but with stable we
>>>> never want to break the users existing setup when they upgrade from
>>>> 2X.11.n to 2X.11.n+1.
> 
> N.B. ^^^^
> 
>>>>
>>>> Let me know what you think?
>>>
>>> IMO these patches are to to be backported to stable branch.
>>
>> Thanks Andrew.
>>
>>> However, af_xdp maintainers opinion is more important here.
>>>
>>
>> Qi, what do you think?
>>
> 
> Hi Qi/Ciara, this issue is still present approaching 21.11.4.
> 
> What is your opinion on backporting these patches? Please especially
> note the paragraph above wrt users not being required to upgrade libbpf.
> 

+Shibin, following discussion in DPDK release meeting.

> thanks,
> Kevin.
> 
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Kevin.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://paste.centos.org/view/e4eec764
>>>> [2]
>>>> 1eb1846b1a net/af_xdp: make compatible with libbpf 0.8.0
>>>> 5ff3dbe6ce net/af_xdp: add log on XDP program removal failures
>>>> 0ed0bc3834 net/af_xdp: avoid version-based check for program load
>>>> e024c7e838 net/af_xdp: avoid version-based check for shared UMEM
>>>> f76dc44ded net/af_xdp: make clear which libxdp version is required
>>>> 50b855fc47 net/af_xdp: move XDP library presence flag setting
>>>>
>>>
>>
>