On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:41 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 7:34 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > @@ -3539,7 +3540,7 @@ static int bpf_tracing_prog_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > */
> > struct bpf_attach_target_info tgt_info = {};
> >
> > - err = bpf_check_attach_target(NULL, prog, tgt_prog, btf_id,
> > + err = bpf_check_attach_target(log, prog, tgt_prog, btf_id,
> > &tgt_info);
>
> I still don't like this uapi addition.
>
> It only helps a rare corner case of freplace usage:
> /* If there is no saved target, or the specified target is
> * different from the destination specified at load time, we
> * need a new trampoline and a check for compatibility
> */
>
> If it was useful in more than one case we could consider it,
> but uapi addition for a single rare use, is imo wrong trade off.
Agreed. I think the idea of verbose log is useful for bpf() syscall,
given how complicated some of its conditions are. But it should be
done more generically, ideally at syscall (or at least the entire BPF
command) level, not for one particular kind of link.
>
> pw-bot: cr
