On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 9:35 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:00 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer > <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > (Cross-posting to iovisor-dev) > > > > Seeking input from BPF-llvm developers. How come Clang/LLVM 10+ is > > generating incompatible BTF-info in ELF file, and downgrading to LLVM-9 > > fixes the issue ? > > > > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 14:50:27 -0700 Elerion <elerion1000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Never mind, I fixed it by downgrading to Clang 9. > > > > > > It appears to be an issue with Clang/LLVM 10+ > > > > > > https://github.com/cilium/ebpf/issues/43 > > This is newer Clang recording that function is global, not static. > libbpf is sanitizing BTF to remove this flag, if kernel doesn't > support this. But given this is re-implementation of libbpf, that's > probably not happening, right? just running ./test_xdp_veth.sh on the latest bpf-next with the latest clang I see: BTF debug data section '.BTF' rejected: Invalid argument (22)! - Length: 514 Verifier analysis: ... [11] VAR _license type_id=9 linkage=1 [12] DATASEC license size=0 vlen=1 size == 0 BTF debug data section '.BTF' rejected: Invalid argument (22)! - Length: 494 Verifier analysis: ... [11] VAR _license type_id=9 linkage=1 [12] DATASEC license size=0 vlen=1 size == 0 BTF debug data section '.BTF' rejected: Invalid argument (22)! 11] VAR _license type_id=9 linkage=1 [12] DATASEC license size=0 vlen=1 size == 0 PING 10.1.1.33 (10.1.1.33) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.1.1.33: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.042 ms --- 10.1.1.33 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.042/0.042/0.042/0.000 ms selftests: xdp_veth [PASS] Is that just the noise from libbpf probing or what?
