Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 5:05 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > Currently when you want to attach a trace program to a bpf program
>> > the section name needs to match the tracepoint/function semantics.
>> >
>> > However the addition of the bpf_program__set_attach_target() API
>> > allows you to specify the tracepoint/function dynamically.
>> >
>> > The call flow would look something like this:
>> >
>> > xdp_fd = bpf_prog_get_fd_by_id(id);
>> > trace_obj = bpf_object__open_file("func.o", NULL);
>> > prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_title(trace_obj,
>> > "fentry/myfunc");
>> > bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, xdp_fd,
>> > "fentry/xdpfilt_blk_all");
>>
>> I think it would be better to have the attach type as a separate arg
>> instead of encoding it in the function name. I.e., rather:
>>
>> bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, xdp_fd,
>> "xdpfilt_blk_all", BPF_TRACE_FENTRY);
>
> I agree about not specifying section name prefix (e.g., fentry/). But
> disagree that expected attach type (BPF_TRACE_FENTRY) should be part
> of this API. We already have bpf_program__set_expected_attach_type()
> API, no need to duplicate it here.
Ah yes, forgot about that; just keeping that and making this function
name only is fine with me :)
-Toke
