On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 11:44 AM Andrey Ignatov <rdna@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> [Tue, 2020-04-14 11:25 -0700]: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:56 AM Andrey Ignatov <rdna@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx> [Mon, 2020-04-13 21:56 -0700]: > > ... > > > > > v1->v2: > > > > - fixed prog_type/expected_attach_type combo (Andrey); > > > > - added comment explaining what we are doing in probe_exp_attach_type (Andrey). > > > > > > Thanks for changes. > > > > > > I built the patch (removing the double .sec Song mentioned since it > > > breaks compilation) and tested it: it fixes the problem with NET_XMIT_CN > > > > Wait, what? How does it break compilation? I compiled and tested > > before submitting and just cleaned and built again, no compilation > > errors or even warnings. Can you share compilation error you got, > > please? > > Sure: > > 11:37:28 1 rdna@dev082.prn2:~/bpf-next$>/home/rdna/bin/clang --version > clang version 9.0.20190721 > Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > Thread model: posix > InstalledDir: /home/rdna/bin > 11:37:32 0 rdna@dev082.prn2:~/bpf-next$>env GCC=~/bin/gcc CLANG=~/bin/clang CC=~/bin/clang LLC=~/bin/llc LLVM_STRIP=~/bin/llvm-strip make V=1 -C tools/bpf/bpftool/ [...] > > fatal error: too many errors emitted, stopping now [-ferror-limit=] > 20 errors generated. > ld -r -o staticobjs/libbpf-in.o staticobjs/libbpf.o staticobjs/bpf.o staticobjs/nlattr.o staticobjs/btf.o staticobjs/libbpf_errno.o staticobjs/str_error.o staticobjs/netlink.o staticobjs/bpf_prog_linfo.o staticobjs/libbpf_probes.o staticobjs/xsk.o staticobjs/hashmap.o staticobjs/btf_dump.o > ld: cannot find staticobjs/libbpf.o: No such file or directory > make[2]: *** [staticobjs/libbpf-in.o] Error 1 > make[1]: *** [staticobjs/libbpf-in.o] Error 2 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/rdna/bpf-next/tools/lib/bpf' > make: *** [/home/rdna/bpf-next/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.a] Error 2 > make: Leaving directory `/home/rdna/bpf-next/tools/bpf/bpftool' > 11:37:43 2 rdna@dev082.prn2:~/bpf-next$> Weird, I can't repro it locally neither with GCC, nor with clang-9 or latest clang... > > > > I guess we can deal with selftest separately in the original thread. > > > > Sure, if this is going to be applied to bpf as a fix, I'd rather > > follow-up with selftests separately. > > Sounds good. > > > > Also a question about bpf vs bpf-next: since this fixes real problem > > > with loading cgroup skb programs, should it go to bpf tree instead? > > > > It will be up to maintainers, it's not so clear whether it's a new > > feature or a bug fix.. I don't mind either way. > > Sounds good. Thanks. > > -- > Andrey Ignatov
