On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 2:27 AM Lorenz Bauer <lorenz.bauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 6:38 PM Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I don't remember if this is intention or not, but the main part is > > adjusting CO-RE relocation, the actual instruction value is less > > important. But this is happening after static linking, because BTF is > > deduplicated (there is a duplication in BTF generated by Clang). > > Ah I see! And the deduplication is done by libbpf during linking? So yes > far, we've been validating that the instruction immediate matches what > is in ext_infos. Should I just stop doing that? probably, because I just checked libbpf's linker code, I don't think we adjust instructions that have CO-RE relocations. We might probably add that, but it's basically just BTF_TYPE_ID_LOCAL that would need this special handling. If someone sends the patch I'll accept it :) > > > There are at least two identical prototypes (which is strange and > > might be worth looking into from Clang side). > > That would be good! Agreed, maybe Yonghong or Eduard can take a look when they get time?
