[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 21:07:43 +0000
From: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpftool: enable libbpf's strict mode by default
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 18:19, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 11:23 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Otherwise, attaching with bpftool doesn't work with strict section names.
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > - add --legacy option to switch back to pre-1.0 behavior
> > - print a warning when program fails to load in strict mode to point
> > to --legacy flag
> > - by default, don't append / to the section name; in strict
> > mode it's relevant only for a small subset of prog types
> >
>
> LGTM. I'll wait for Quenting's ack before applying. Thanks!
Looks good as well, thanks Stanislav!
Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
I wonder if we should display some indication ("libbpf_strict"?) in
the output of "bpftool version", alongside "libbfd" and "skeleton"?
It's not strictly a feature (and would always be present for newer
versions), but it could help to check how a bpftool binary will
behave? (I don't mind taking it as a follow-up.)
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists