[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYJXJbquSKdc_iEfFGXuA3eYMgwvAbOWEkBo7BW4faZww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 16:17:33 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
"Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
Viktor Malik <vmalik@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 09/27] bpf: Add support to load multi func
tracing program
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:40 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Adding support to load tracing program with new BPF_F_MULTI_FUNC flag,
> that allows the program to be loaded without specific function to be
> attached to.
Are there any benefits to using a new load flag vs having separate
expected attach types like FENTRY_MULTI/FEXIT_MULTI? I find load flags
a bigger pain to work with compared to expected attach type (and
expected attach type should be more apparent in BPF link info, bpftool
output, etc).
>
> Such program will be allowed to be attached to multiple functions
> in following patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> ---
> include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 7 +++++++
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++-
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 7 +++++++
> 5 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists