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_expected_attach_type(prog, BPF_TRACE_FENTRY);
> bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, xdp_fd,
> "xdpfilt_blk_all");
> bpf_object__load(trace_obj)
>
> Signed-off-by: Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hmm, one question about the attach_prog_fd usage:
> +int bpf_program__set_attach_target(struct bpf_program *prog,
> + int attach_prog_fd,
> + const char *attach_func_name)
> +{
> + int btf_id;
> +
> + if (!prog || attach_prog_fd < 0 || !attach_func_name)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (attach_prog_fd)
> + btf_id = libbpf_find_prog_btf_id(attach_func_name,
> + attach_prog_fd);
> + else
> + btf_id = __find_vmlinux_btf_id(prog->obj->btf_vmlinux,
> + attach_func_name,
> + prog->expected_attach_type);
This implies that no one would end up using fd 0 as a legitimate prog
fd. This already seems to be the case for the existing code, but is that
really a safe assumption? Couldn't a caller that closes fd 0 (for
instance while forking) end up having it reused? Seems like this could
result in weird hard-to-debug bugs?
-Toke
