On 09/12/24 16:20, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> Looking again at the probe itself, does the second instruction serve any
> practical purpose here? Don't you just need to test the BPF_JMP32_A?
>
> Looks good otherwise, thank you!
>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <qmo@xxxxxxxxxx>
I wanted to keep probes similar to the previous ones (especially v3
and v2), despite we never check their return codes. This means
having as 4th instruction `BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1)`. However,
to do so, I also need the 2nd instruction, otherwise I'd hit an
`Invalid Argument` error while calling `bpf_prog_load()`: I think
that would be due to the fact that no execution paths would
execute that instruction otherwise.
An alternative approach less consistent with the others would be:
struct bpf_insn insns[3] = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_JMP32_A(0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN()
};
Please let me know if you have any further questions, need
additional information, or if I could improve the patch.
