John Fastabend wrote: > Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:36 AM Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/4/19 7:32 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > >> If we are not going to validate the section should we also skip collect'ing it? > > > > Well, if user supplied version, we will parse and use it to override > > > > out prepopulated one, so in that sense we do have validation. > > > > > > > > But I think it's fine just to drop it altogether. Will do in v3. > > > > > > > > > > what about older kernel that still enforce it? > > > May be populate it in bpf_attr while loading, but > > > don't check it in elf from libbpf? > > > > That's what my change does. I pre-populate correct kernel version in > > bpf_object->kern_version from uname(). If ELF has "version" section, > > we still parse it and override bpf_object->kern_version. > > bpf_object->kern_version then is always specified as part of > > bpf_prog_load->kern_version. > > > > So what we are discussing here is to not even look at user-provided > > version, but just always specify correct current kernel version. So I > > don't think we are going to break anything, except we might allow to > > pass some programs that were failing before due to unspecified or zero > > version. > > > > So with that, do you think it's ok to get rid of version section altogether? > > Should be fine on my side. Go for it. ... Actually it turns out this broke some kernels that report via uname() incorrect version info. Sent a patch out to add just the bits back we need to get it working again. To bad but I can't fix distributions that are deployed so...
