| Message ID | 20210928140734.1274261-3-houtao1@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | add support for writable bare tracepoint | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for bpf-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | success | Link |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | warning | 3 maintainers not CCed: kpsingh@kernel.org john.fastabend@gmail.com songliubraving@fb.com |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| netdev/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 10 lines checked |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next | success | VM_Test |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR | success | PR summary |
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 6:53 AM Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> wrote: > > Program on writable tracepoint is BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE, > but its attachment is the same as BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT. > > Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> > --- > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c > index ef5db34bf913..b874c0179084 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c > @@ -7976,6 +7976,10 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = { > .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp), > SEC_DEF("raw_tp/", RAW_TRACEPOINT, > .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp), > + SEC_DEF("raw_tracepoint.w/", RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE, > + .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp), > + SEC_DEF("raw_tp.w/", RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE, > + .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp), Unfortunately I just refactored these SEC_DEF() definitions, please rebase because this won't apply cleanly anymore. Otherwise it looks good to me. > SEC_DEF("tp_btf/", TRACING, > .expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP, > .is_attach_btf = true, > -- > 2.29.2 >
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c index ef5db34bf913..b874c0179084 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c @@ -7976,6 +7976,10 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = { .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp), SEC_DEF("raw_tp/", RAW_TRACEPOINT, .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp), + SEC_DEF("raw_tracepoint.w/", RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE, + .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp), + SEC_DEF("raw_tp.w/", RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE, + .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp), SEC_DEF("tp_btf/", TRACING, .expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP, .is_attach_btf = true,
Program on writable tracepoint is BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE, but its attachment is the same as BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT. Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com> --- tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)