Re: [PATCH 0/3] selftests/bpf: Fixes for out-of-tree builds

["Ricardo B. Marlière (SUSE)" <ricardo@marliere.net>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2207 bytes --]

On Thu Sep 24, 2026 at 4:06 AM -03, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-09-22 at 15:31 -0300, Ricardo B. Marlière (SUSE) wrote:
>> On Mon Sep 21, 2026 at 6:04 PM -03, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2026-09-21 at 14:40 -0600, Nico Pache (Red Hat) wrote:
>> > 
>> > ...
>> > 
>> > > Given your series was defferred, and there is a "rewrite" coming, what would
>> > > be the best approach to working together (between us three) to get these
>> > > fixes in that series too. 
>> > 
>> > The, "rewrite", as you call it, had landed today.
>> > So the series in question can be re-spun.
>> > Regarding your patch on top of it, it appears you can just post is separately.
>> > However, I am inclined to be confrontational towards changes like this one.
>> > The purpose of the selftests makefile is to run selftests as appropriate
>> > for current tip of the kernel tree using a very specific kernel configuration.
>> 
>> Ideally, if a Kconfig symbol is needed and the kernel under test does not
>> have it, tests are skipped. But with BPF they were simply not built,
>> rendering the tests useless for anything other than in-tree vmlinux with
>> tools/selftests/bpf/config*.
>> 
>> > Main users of this makefile are BPF developers and BPF CI.
>> 
>> But they shouldn't be the *only* ones, IMHO. Enabling distros to build and
>> run the tests is also valuable to catch regressions in their kernels, don't
>> you think?
>> 
>> > Support for distros customizing the makefile is a non-goal.
>> > The "PERMISSIVE" change done enough damage already.
>> 
>> It's ugly, I agree, but what damage has it caused? I see that it's going to
>> be reverted anyway, but I would appreciate if you could elaborate.
>
> It's the first time I see a makefile that builds stuff not fully but
> 90% of it and returns success. The damage is the need to maintain it
> going forward that already cost some time.

Sure, that's fair.

>
> Do you have a list of kernel configs you had issues with?

So, for openSUSE Tumbleweed (x86_64) specifically these are the ones:

- PACKET
- NF_CONNTRACK
- NF_NAT
- NF_CONNTRACK_MARK
- VXLAN
- XFRM_USER

I attached the details.

Thanks!

[-- Attachment #2: bpf-allnoconfig.sh --]
[-- Type: application/x-shellscript, Size: 6824 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: bpf-tumbleweed.sh --]
[-- Type: application/x-shellscript, Size: 2396 bytes --]