On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 16:37 -0800, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, it's all sane in the above example. But imagine a stand-alone
> > struct_ops program with no SEC(".struct_ops") at all:
> >
> >
> > SEC("struct_ops/test1")
> > int BPF_PROG(test1) { ... }
> >
> > /* nothing else */
> >
> > Currently this will fail, right?
> >
> > And with your proposal it will succeed without actually even
> > attempting to load the BPF program. Or am I misunderstanding?
>
> Yep, currently it should fail.
>
> Agree that we need to distinguish this case and prog->attach_btf_id is not
> enough. This probably can be tracked in collect_st_ops_relos at the open phase.
collect_st_ops_relos() should work, I'll add a flag to track this.
