[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YEwh2S3n8Ufgyovr@sultan-box.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:22:17 -0800
From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libbpf: Use the correct fd when attaching to perf events
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 05:31:14PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 1:43 PM Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
> >
> > We should be using the program fd here, not the perf event fd.
>
> Why? Can you elaborate on what issue you ran into with the current code?
bpf_link__pin() would fail with -EINVAL when using tracepoints, kprobes, or
uprobes. The failure would happen inside the kernel, in bpf_link_get_from_fd()
right here:
if (f.file->f_op != &bpf_link_fops) {
fdput(f);
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
Since bpf wasn't looking for the perf event fd, I swapped it for the program fd
and bpf_link__pin() worked.
Sultan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists