On Wed, 2023-12-13 at 11:25 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: [...] > Yes, if we add a bunch of extra log grabbing and matching logic to > fexit_bpf2bpf test. Which, honestly, I just didn't want to touch more > than I absolutely needed to. So I'll use your permission to ignore > this. Still think it's useful and diff is not that big: https://gist.github.com/eddyz87/5f518b96eb4188dd1afd436e811bbef9 > > Also, maybe kernel should be tweaked to be a bit more informative, > > as message about static function is confusing, wdyt? > > > > Currently the verifier doesn't distinguish between reasons for > "unreliable". Not sure if it's worth tracking more information just > for this. Certainly that feels like an orthogonal to this series > improvement. Fair enough.
