On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:34 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
<memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
-ENOCOMMITMESSAGE?
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 3 ++
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 2 +
> 3 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
[...]
> @@ -515,6 +521,13 @@ struct bpf_object {
> void *priv;
> bpf_object_clear_priv_t clear_priv;
>
> + struct {
> + struct hashmap *map;
> + int *fds;
> + size_t cap_cnt;
> + __u32 n_fds;
> + } kfunc_btf_fds;
> +
> char path[];
> };
> #define obj_elf_valid(o) ((o)->efile.elf)
> @@ -5327,6 +5340,7 @@ bpf_object__relocate_data(struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf_program *prog)
> ext = &obj->externs[relo->sym_off];
> insn[0].src_reg = BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL;
> insn[0].imm = ext->ksym.kernel_btf_id;
> + insn[0].off = ext->ksym.offset;
Just a few lines above we use insn[1].imm =
ext->ksym.kernel_btf_obj_fd; for EXT_KSYM (for variables). Why are you
inventing a new form if we already have a pretty consistent pattern?
> break;
> case RELO_SUBPROG_ADDR:
> if (insn[0].src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC) {
[...]
